"
... in his lawsuit against Dominick’s over the unauthorized use of his name in a congratulatory advertisement."
“This... shows that I will protect my name to the fullest, in the United States and all over the world, you know? It is my name. I worked hard for it for 30-something years, and I’m not just going to let someone take it. I will fight till the end,” said Jordan.
He attempted some court/court word play but got a little wordy:
“This is not one of the courts or type of court that I like to win at, you know? Obviously, I’m so used to playing on a different court, but unfortunately it ended up in this court and I’m very happy with the results.”
The money is going to charity, by the way.
Posts
35 comments:
Asshole.
What was the "congratulatory ad"? Telling him what a great guy he is?
So, it's not about money. Just about pride.
And that makes it all OK.
By the way, what's going on with jurors?
Jurors are not wise arbitration candidates. But America has this jury system. It sucks, but like global warming and prostitution, it's here to stay.
I'm presently listening to a lecture series on Greek mythology and I now find myself wondering if the kouros back in those days were more inclined to buy a pair of sandals because they were endorsed by Achilles or Ajax or somebody along those lines.
Magical thinking and all that.
Evolutionary psychology has an explanation, probably, and I wish I knew what it is.
I think its the right result. Did you see the ad? If you want MJ to sell your steak in Chicagoland you gotta pay MJ to sell your steak in Chicagoland.
After the verdict was read, Jordan immediately broke out in his signature grin, and Frederick Sperling, his chief attorney, clasped and shook his hand, then got up, walked over and hugged the handful of attorneys making up the basketball star’s legal team.
U.S. District John Robert Blakey had to admonish him to sit down so the proceedings could wrap up.
Why all the legal team backslapping?
This was a "slam-dunk" right of celebrity case, wasn't it?
And can you imagine the extent of their pilfering of the eventual award to charity?
The writer didn't ask that. Read like a very PR managed piece.
So can the teacher that Walker is constantly telling stories about also sue for unlawful use of her name? it is obvious that Scottie is trying to profit from it. Or is this another one of those things that are exclusive to the One Percenters?
EDH, those lawyers worked very hard to convince a jury in Chicago that local basketball legend Michael Jordan should be fairly compensated on the sole issue of damages, after the judge had already found the grocer liable.
Did the jury share any characteristics with Jackson, by any chance ?
Michael, do you mean whether any members of the jury are former professional basketball players or multimillionaires?
it is against the constitution to exclude potential jurors based solely on their race.
Ryan, LOL. Making my point, right?
Let's see how his suit against Jewel-Osco turns out.
Dominick's is closed. Wondering if it has any assets or publication insurance coverage left. It did pay the defense lawyers and that tells me something.
Jewel-Oslo settles for big seven figures.
EDH, I don't know. Is your point that it should be legal to exclude jurors on the basis of race? I mean, it's not legal now, but should it be?
Make a policy argument. Otherwise it's kind of a moot point to be making.
David, I think its Safeway now. They have lots of money.
Here is an article that has a picture of the ad.
So, are all of these news outlets reporting on this story -- using that arrogant bum's name and picture -- going to have to pay damages too? After all, a major reason for news articles is commercial, to sell the paper. That is little different than this supermarket's placing of an add congratulating this jerk.
If anything, the only liability that should attach from that ad is false advertising. He has never been "a cut above." He's always been an obnoxious, no-class punk.
Re "The money is going to charity, by the way":
That presumes that --
* the trial court, after post-verdict motions, will enter judgment consistent with and enforcing the jury's verdict;
* that all appellate courts asked to review that judgment will affirm it or at least leave it intact; and -- most questionably of all --
* that the defendant, Dominick's, described in the article as a "now-defunct" supermarket chain, will voluntarily pay the judgment or nevertheless still has assets that can be seized and auctioned to satisfy it despite any bankruptcy proceedings; or that Safeway, described as Dominick's parent, can be held legally responsible for its defunct subsidiary's judgment obligations.
The widows and orphans ought not start salivating yet. This is good PR by Jordan and his minions, but it's just PR at this point.
This is why contemporary reporters are so annoying -- you can't figure out what really happened.
Here it is --
Sports Illustrated published a commemorative issue featuring **** in 2009. Dominick's placed an ad with a graphic saying "Congratulations **** (number) You are a cut above." Anyone who has ever looked at a program, yearbook, or other event publication knows that this is a common practice of businesses. Below the congrats was a coupon for $2 off on a cut of steak. According to Bleacher Report, a total of two people redeemed the coupon. Two.
How that adds up to (1) any infringment upon the property rights of this highly public figure, in a publication specifically dedicated to him, (2) any damage from being told "congratulations", (3) any damage due to monetary loss, (4) any damage from the probably $10 profit the store made from selling those two steaks (which it probably would have sold anyway), is beyond me or any other reasonable finder of fact or judger of law.
Ryan:
The usual practice is to buy assets and not the equity of the acquired company; especially if the acquired company is not public.
But there probably is an advertising liability policy. Just wondering what the limits are.
If you do not take aggressive steps to protect your intellectual property - and that's what Michael's image is - you can weaken or lose your ability to protect it in the future. My understanding of IP law is that it is risky to pick and choose; to say: "That infringement is OK cause they're nice guys but this infringement is not."
"The money is going to charity, by the way."
Even the legal fees? Doubt creeps in.
Jordan's share of the money is going to charity.
@Ambrose Hits the nail on the head. One can not be too vigilant about protecting his intellectual property or his trademarks. It may make one look like an asshole, but it has to be done or one will eventually lose control of something that is worth a lot of money. In the retail business when you even come close to trespassing on someone's trademark you can be sure you will hear from a trademark attorney post haste.
"Jurors are not wise arbitration candidates. But America has this jury system. It sucks...."
Why do you hate democracy? A jury of one's fellow citizens--rather than a cadre of state judges--is a lynchpin of democracy. At it is, we've managed to just about kill dead Dead DEAD any semblance of a fair trial system--jurors or no--through mandatory sentences, plea bargaining as substitute for a jury trial in almost all criminal cases (I know the Jordan circumstance is a civil trial), and a refusal in most cases to let jurors hear information that would allow them a better context within which to render their verdicts. This latter is because the state wants to remove as completely as possible any means by which jurors might actually come to independent decisions not intended by the prosecution.
A jury is not intended only to hear the facts which would determine whether the defendant may have done the deed for which he is being charged and then vote "guilty" or "not guilty"--and the facts juries are allowed to hear even to serve this delimited purpose--but also to decide whether the law itself or the punishment are just. Juries can and should say "No!" when a defendant is being charged under a law the citizenry considers unjust or faces, in the jury's opinion, a disproportionate and therefore unjust sentence of punishment if convicted. However, this crucial function of juries has been almost entirely eliminated, and juries now are essentially rubber stamps for the state.
Never liked Jordan, so anything he advertises turns me off. But I like steak at a discount. Decision, decisions
$8.9 Million for this is a crock. Maybe worth $8.9 thousand at most
Where's SI in all of this. They planned a published a special Michael Jordan edition. Surely their ad salesmen were out promoting the very sort of ad that got Dominicks and Jewel in trouble. What a arangement did SI have with M Jordan to do this?
"Jewel-Oslo (sic) settles for big seven figures."
If true, this surprises me. The two ads had key differences. If the description I read was accurate, the Jewel ad had no product add-in, didn't even use his name, and used only the number "23" on a pair of shoes to identify him. It was purely congratulatory. Since my impression is that the product tie-in and name usage were the major sins of the Dominick ad, it seems strange that they would settle for an amount that sounds nearly identical to the more "damaging" Dominick's ad.
He may have some special claim to the number 23, but that would be some kind of special considering that he actually changed numbers during his comeback with the Bulls.
If the owner of any valuable property allows others to use or profit by that property without legally challenging each such instance, that party is opening the door for anyone and everyone at any time to use that property for their own purposes. Michael Jordan's "property" is his name and likeness, which he sells to those willing to pay for it. If he allows a restaurant to use his name and likeness to induce diners to eat at the restaurant, it undermines or destroys his ability to sell his name and likeness to others for similar use, as they will see they can appropriate his name and likeness freely. Moreover, by not challenging such unauthorized use of his name and likeness, the impression is created that he does approve of the product or service being advertised, and even that he was paid for the use of his name and likeness. How can he then stop someone whose product or service he vehemently disapproves of from using his name and likeness?
I dont defend Jordan because I like him--I don't care in the least about basketball or MIchael Jordan, (or, really, organized sports of any type)--but because it is perfectly understandable and sensible behavior for Jordan to have sued this company.
I see Ambrose earlier said more succinctly what I just said. That's what happens when you only skim through the comments.
Since when are casinos and bookies considered "charities"?
Cook and Ambrose are right. As for the slur against the jury, shame. My experience in both federal and state court damages litigation is that judges are basically arrogant morons who rarely get it and juries cut through the BS and get it right on the facts. The jury was charged with determining the damages, not whether there were damages. If there is fault for damages its on the part of the trial judge. As for the amount of the damages, not be privy to the evidence introduced can't say whether it was excessive or not but considering the ad was a too-clever-by-half attempt to use Jordan without paying him a royalty based on what he can command in fees it might even be within reason since it includes attorneys fees which is permitted in IP law.
I agree with other commenters, the money after lawyers is going to charity...
Although "charity" has taken on a sordid meaning in the 21st Century, so it doesn't make me feel good, like the March of Dimes did...
Post a Comment