Pixar, Lucasfilm said to settle employee no-poaching lawsuit

Pixar and Lucasfilm have settled a lawsuit by workers alleging an illegal cartel formed by seven technology companies including Apple, Google and Intel, lawyers have informed the court.

The class counsels have informed the court in a letter that a settlement was reached, Judge Lucy Koh of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose division wrote in an order on Sunday.

Details of the settlement were not mentioned. The parties expect completing documentation of the proposed settlement and will submit it for court approval "in the near future," according to the letter to the judge on Friday.

Five engineers alleged in the lawsuit, individually and on behalf of a class of all those similarly situated, that Adobe Systems, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar, all high-tech companies with principal place of business in the San Francisco-Silicon Valley area of California, were involved in an "overarching conspiracy" to fix and suppress employee compensation. The companies are alleged to have restricted employee mobility by setting up "Do Not Call" lists and putting each firm's employees off-limits to the other companies.

The companies had settled in an investigation by the Department of Justice into the practices, without admitting any wrongdoing, but agreed not to ban cold calling and not to enter into any deals that prevent competition for employees. However, the employees have held that the victims of the conspiracy were not adequately compensated by the agreement with the government.

One of the highlights of the lawsuit was a written affidavit by former president and CEO of Palm, Edward Colligan, that former Apple CEO Steve Jobs threatened Palm with a patent lawsuit if it did not enter into an agreement in which the companies pledged not to hire employees from each other.

The current settlement with Pixar and Lucasfilm is with a proposed technical class of employees.

The two companies could not be immediately reached for comment.

The court declined to certify the lawsuit as class action in April, but Judge Koh said she may review her decision, after giving the software engineers leave to amend their petition in the light of new information.

The engineers have stated in a supplemental motion that though the evidence supports certification of either a class of all-salaried employees or a class of technical, creative, and research and development employees, there is powerful evidence that the no-cold calling agreements at issue in the case were designed substantially to disrupt recruiting of technical class employees. The plaintiffs had earlier proposed the two classes.

In view of the proposed Pixar and Lucasfilm settlements and others that may be noticed by July 19, Judge Koh has asked each side to submit briefs on how the settlements will impact the supplemental motion for class certification scheduled for hearing on Aug. 8.

'Jersey Shore' Star Loses 'Fitchuation' Lawsuit to Abercrombie & Fitch

Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino
Here's "The Situation," or Jersey Shore's Mike Sorrentino, who sued Abercrombie & Fitch when the clothing retailer came out with a T-shirt bearing the phrase "The Fitchuation" and also offered in a press release to pay $10,000 if Sorrentino would not wear A&F clothing on the show.

Here's the outcome, as Sorrentino has now lost his lawsuit that alleged that A&F had committed trademark infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, injury to business reputation and misappropriation of likeness.

A Florida federal judge just granted A&F summary judgment, while shooting down each of Sorrentino's claims.

PHOTOS: The Quotable Situation

Sorrentino might have given himself the the nickname "The Situation" because his abs were rock-hard, but U.S. District Judge John O'Sullivan finds his trademark claim over T-shirts to be soft and flabby. Here's the full ruling.

The judge writes, "Although the word 'situation' is not a word that was coined or made up by the plaintiffs, or a word that is obsolete, totally unknown in the language or out of common usage, the Court can discern no relationship between the word 'situation' and the apparel or entertainment services that the plaintiffs provide."

Analyzing other factors including the similarity of "The Situation" to "Fitchuation," Sorrentino fares no better.

"The T-shirt expresses 'The Fitchuation' visually and phonetically different than 'The Situation,'" writes Judge O'Sullivan. "There is no evidence of A&F 'palming off' its T-shirt as that of the plaintiffs where, as here, the T-shirt has the A&F inside label and prominently uses A&F's own famous trademark 'Fitch' as part of the parody."

STORY: Mike 'The Situation' Sorrentino's Settlement With Ex-Management Firm Hits Bump

The judge also notes that Sorrentino didn't offer "Situation" apparel until A&F did so, that Sorrentino doesn't sell his products in retail stores and that the plaintiff hasn't produced any evidence of actual confusion among consumers. As for what A&F had in mind, it's noted that an intent to parody doesn't equal an intent to confuse the public.

The Florida court also determines that A&F had a fair use right to make fun of Sorrentino in a press release. In fact, this press release is determined not to be an advertisement.

"A&F used only so much of the plaintiff's name as was reasonably necessary to respond to his wearing A&F's brand on The Jersey Shore, and did not do anything that would suggest Sorrentino's sponsorship or endorsement" writes Judge O'Sullivan. "A&F's press release expressly disassociated Sorrentino from A&F, and the plaintiffs have conceded that no third party has expressed any confusion that the press release rejecting Sorrentino's image somehow suggested sponsorship or endorsement by Sorrentino."

So much for reverse psychology in marketing. In analyzing Sorrentino's publicity rights claim, the judge won't even entertain the "hearsay" of news articles and Facebook comments that speculated the press release was a publicity stunt. And in looking at Sorrentino's false advertising claim, the judge says there isn't anything false about it.

Yes, Sorrentino could have accepted $10,000. As the judge notes, "A&F's offer of money for Sorrentino not to wear its brand is a statement of fact, but is undisputedly true."

 

'The Butler' Battle Escalates: Weinstein Co. Hints Lawsuit, Raises Antitrust Warning

An image from Lee Daniels' 'The Butler'
The battle over whether Harvey Weinstein can call Lee Daniels' upcoming White House movie The Butler escalated Wednesday as the Weinstein Company's superstar attorney David Boies fired off letters to Warner Bros and the MPAA threatening litigation.

In an arbitration, the MPAA's Title Registry Bureau ruled Tuesday that TWC could not use the title, because it's also the name of a preexisting 1916 short film that now resides in the Warner Bros. library.

As a signatory to the MPAA's Title Registration Bureau, Weinstein is bound by the arbitrator's ruling. The movie mogul might not like the fact that an arbitrator gave Warners the rights to The Butler, but judges are loath to do anything but confirm arbitration awards.

RELATED: Harvey Weinstein Loses to Warner Bros., Enlists David Boies in 'The Butler' Title Fight

With the success of an appeal looking unlikely, and with TWC facing $25,000 worth of daily fines if it continues to advertise the film as The Butler, Boies is now speaking about a lawsuit. Possible claims could include extortion, misrepresentation and antitrust violations.

The letter to Warner Bros' general counsel hints at some of the discussions that preceded the title dispute.

"I am informed that Warner Bros. represented to, and agreed with, TWC that TWC would be permitted without objection by Warner Bros. to use the title “The Butler” in return for certain contributions that TWC agreed to make," writes Boies.

According to TWC COO David Glasser, "We had the title of The Butler and we had spoken with Warners along the way. Our head of distribution and their head of distribution had an agreement. But then we became involved with another piece of business with Warners, and suddenly we were told there was a conflict, and so we went to arbitration." He would not comment on what other business dealings had been taking place.

Other sources paint a different picture, claiming that TWC began using the title in September, 2012 and attempted to register it with the MPAA in November, but the request was declined. Annoyed that TWC was moving forward with the title without the necessary clearances, Warners told TWC it couldn't use the title in March and then sent a cease-and-desist letter in June, all of which led to the arbitration. As for the suggestion that an earlier agreement had been reached, one sources familiar with the dispute says, "There was no deal. That is false."

PHOTOS: Movies That Narrowly Avoided an NC-17

In his letter, Boies continues, "I am further informed that after TWC had relied on these representations and agreement, Warner Bros. repudiated those representations and agreement and sought, in concert with the MPAA, to prevent TWC from using its title."

Asked whether in order to resolve the matter quickly, TWC would consider renaming the film, which stars Forest Whitaker and is based on the true story of Eugene Allen, who spent 34 years working at the White House, Glasser said, "I have Lee Daniels' The Butler registered. I have The White House Butler registered. But what is so insane is that we've been told we can not use any version of the worlds 'the butler.' That part blows our minds."

Boies' second letter to the MPAA is even more direct about the potential antitrust claims.

"To the extent that the MPAA in concert with its members seeks to 'permanently protect' titles where there is no plausible claim of possible confusion, and no claim of actual damages, such an attempt would be a naked restraint on trade in violation of the anti-trust laws," writes Boies.

The MPAA did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Of course, the MPAA's arbitration system doesn't use the same standards set up in trademark law to measure the likelihood of consumer confusion about the source of a mark. If it did, the outcome might have ended up differently. Now the question is whether The Weinstein Co. can allege with specificity enough funny business before the initiation of the arbitration claim.

In the meantime, the two companies are locked into a public relations stand-off. Warner Bros. risks looking as if its playing the spoiler, while Weinstein runs the risk of looking like the same man who has repeatedly cried foul over movie ratings.

'Jersey Shore' Star Loses 'Fitchuation' Lawsuit to Abercrombie & Fitch

Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino

Here's "The Situation," or Jersey Shore's Mike Sorrentino, who sued Abercrombie & Fitch when the clothing retailer came out with a T-shirt bearing the phrase "The Fitchuation" and also offered in a press release to pay $10,000 if Sorrentino would not wear A&F clothing on the show.

Here's the outcome, as Sorrentino has now lost his lawsuit that alleged that A&F had committed trademark infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, injury to business reputation and misappropriation of likeness.

A Florida federal judge just granted A&F summary judgment, while shooting down each of Sorrentino's claims.

PHOTOS: The Quotable Situation

Sorrentino might have given himself the the nickname "The Situation" because his abs were rock-hard, but U.S. District Judge John O'Sullivan finds his trademark claim over T-shirts to be soft and flabby. Here's the full ruling.

The judge writes, "Although the word 'situation' is not a word that was coined or made up by the plaintiffs, or a word that is obsolete, totally unknown in the language or out of common usage, the Court can discern no relationship between the word 'situation' and the apparel or entertainment services that the plaintiffs provide."

Analyzing other factors including the similarity of "The Situation" to "Fitchuation," Sorrentino fares no better.

"The T-shirt expresses 'The Fitchuation' visually and phonetically different than 'The Situation,'" writes Judge O'Sullivan. "There is no evidence of A&F 'palming off' its T-shirt as that of the plaintiffs where, as here, the T-shirt has the A&F inside label and prominently uses A&F's own famous trademark 'Fitch' as part of the parody."

STORY: Mike 'The Situation' Sorrentino's Settlement With Ex-Management Firm Hits Bump

The judge also notes that Sorrentino didn't offer "Situation" apparel until A&F did so, that Sorrentino doesn't sell his products in retail stores and that the plaintiff hasn't produced any evidence of actual confusion among consumers. As for what A&F had in mind, it's noted that an intent to parody doesn't equal an intent to confuse the public.

The Florida court also determines that A&F had a fair use right to make fun of Sorrentino in a press release. In fact, this press release is determined not to be an advertisement.

"A&F used only so much of the plaintiff's name as was reasonably necessary to respond to his wearing A&F's brand on The Jersey Shore, and did not do anything that would suggest Sorrentino's sponsorship or endorsement" writes Judge O'Sullivan. "A&F's press release expressly disassociated Sorrentino from A&F, and the plaintiffs have conceded that no third party has expressed any confusion that the press release rejecting Sorrentino's image somehow suggested sponsorship or endorsement by Sorrentino."

So much for reverse psychology in marketing. In analyzing Sorrentino's publicity rights claim, the judge won't even entertain the "hearsay" of news articles and Facebook comments that speculated the press release was a publicity stunt. And in looking at Sorrentino's false advertising claim, the judge says there isn't anything false about it.

Yes, Sorrentino could have accepted $10,000. As the judge notes, "A&F's offer of money for Sorrentino not to wear its brand is a statement of fact, but is undisputedly true."

Lindsay Lohan Rehab Mercy -- $5 Mil Lawsuit On Hold While She Gets Help

Lindsay Lohan
$5 Mil Lawsuit On 'Rehab Hold'

Lindsay Lohan just learned a bad lesson while she tries to get her life back on track in rehab -- addicts get special breaks when they're sued.

As we reported, D.N.A.M. Apparel Industries -- which manufactured clothes for Lindsay's 6126 line back in 2009-2010 -- sued the actress for the massive $5 million sum in May, claiming her "drug-addled image" made the clothes unsellable ... and they lost millions as a result.

But in a twist of irony, Lindsay's "drug-addled image" just bought her more than a month to scramble a legal defense -- because D.N.A.M. has just agreed to a ceasefire while she's in treatment.

According to new court docs, D.N.A.M. won't serve Lindsay 'til she leaves rehab in mid-August "in a gesture of good faith and so as not to disturb her healing process."

FYI, the lawsuit's already been filed ... but the legal process can't begin until Lindsay has been served with the documents.

You'll recall ... Lindsay initially sued D.N.A.M. for $1.1 million, claiming the company licensed the 6126 trademark, but shortchanged her big time on hundreds of thousands of dollars she claims she was promised in exchange.

 

Movie Producer Looks to Slay 'Dungeons and Dragons' Lawsuit

Wasting no time in defending a lawsuit over Dungeons and Dragons film rights, Courtney Solomon's Sweetpea Entertainment has already filed a motion for summary judgment.

It was just a month ago that Hasbro filed a lawsuit in California federal court. Upon news that Sweetpea was possibly working with Warner Bros. in developing a film based on Chainmail, a board game from Dungeons & Dragons designer Gary Gygax, Hasbro wanted a declaration that it owns rights to the property and sought an injunction to stop the film.

Sweetpea is now rolling the dice that the end-game is nigh.

Hasbro admitted in the lawsuit that Sweetpea acquired rights to the property by an agreement in 1994 and that Solomon produced a 2000 theatrical film and some TV films thereafter. But the the toy company contended that "Sequel Rights have reverted to Hasbro" based upon a five-year reversion clock.

Sweetpea, represented by Patty Glaser's law firm, looks to kill that claim by arguing in a summary judgment motion this week that Hasbro was required to serve written notice of the potential termination with opportunity to cure.

"Hasbro has never provided written notice of its intent to terminate the license, nor has Hasbro provided Sweetpea an opportunity to cure, and therefore Sweetpea is still licensed under the license agreement," says the motion for summary judgment (read in full here).

In addition, Hasbro is claiming damages for copyright infringement for the coming film.

In response, Sweetpea makes the case that there's a fatal flaw in this claim.

"To establish a prima facie case of copyright infringement, a plaintiff needs to juxtapose the specific elements of a copyrighted work with an infringing work," says Sweetpea's motion. "Here, Hasbro merely alleges that Sweetpea is in 'discussions' to produce a Dungeons & Dragons sequel based on a script entitled Chainmail. Even though Hasbro admits it received a copy of the Chainmail script, there is no evidence that Chainmail—or any other work— contains specific elements that are also present in any Hasbro copyrighted work. In fact, there is no evidence of any copyrighted work. Instead, Hasbro merely refers in the complaint to 1500 copyrights without specifying which ones allegedly are infringed."

It's not unheard of for people in the movie industry to get sued for copyright infringement before production of a film finishes. For instance, in a lawsuit that was brought during last year's Toronto Film Festival and later settled, the producers of a planned eco-terrorism film were sued for infringing a literary property.

But the defendants in this case say that Hasbro at least has an obligation to spell out the alleged substantial similarities between one work and the next. (Hasbro has  been reported to have licensed a Dungeons & Dragons reboot to Universal.) As the motion puts it, "It is not sufficient for Hasbro to argue that the mere idea of a sequel to the Dungeons & Dragons movie infringes Hasbro’s copyrights."