Britney Spears sued for $10M
p2pnet.net News:- San Diego’s Lite Breeze sells athletic clothing and sporting team uniforms throughout the US under the brand name IN THE ZONE.
It’s as “wholesome and All-American as hotdogs and apple pie,” says company president Rodd Garner.
But Big Music mannequin Britney Spears has a CD out with the same name and by releasing it, and then promoting it with a similarly named tour, she’s, “taken Lite Breeze’s brand and equated it with what Rolling Stone Magazine has stated ‘offers strip-club, 1-900 sex, accommodating and hollow’,”declares Garner. “See Jon Pareles, Rolling Stone, Dec. 11, 2003.”
He followed up with a $10 million copyright infringement lawsuit naming Spears Clear Channel Entertainment Television Holdings, Inc., Signatures Network, Inc and Zomba Recording Corp, dba Jive Records.
The lawsuit was filed in February, 2004 but Spears didn’t accept service of the legal papers until May, 2004, and “avoided numerous attempts to serve her the legal papers over the past several months,” says a Lie Breeze statement.
“Finally, Ms. Spears agreed to accept service of the papers if Lite Breeze agreed to postpone the taking of her deposition for six months.”
Spears, Clear Channel, et al, have until June 14, 2004 to file their answers to the allegations.
June 10th, 2004 at 9:04 pm
heh, feel the wrath of litigation Clear Channel et al, doesn’t feel too good when the shoes on the other foot does it?
I’m surprised the RIAA hasn’t exposed some loophole or pushed more legislation through to make them exempt from any copyright infringment cases (like the anti-competiitive exemption they enjoy)
June 11th, 2004 at 3:27 pm
This reminds me of a trademark infringement case in Canada.
Lexus vs Lexus.
A car company complaining that a small fruit canning company was infringing on their trademarked brand name.
The judge basically ended the case by asking the court audience to hold up their hands to the following options. “When you hear Lexus; do you think of a car or a can of peaches?” The car was more popular… case dismissed!
Personally a common phrase makes for a poor choice of trademark or brand name, and is actually not legitimate as such. For example yone could not create a company and trademark the name of “open for business”. “In the Zone” is a common phrase in reference to sports, and therefore should not qualify as a trademarkable brandname. The more common the phrase or name the more difficult to enforce.
ref: http://cobrands.business.findlaw.com/intellectual_property/nolo/faq/CEDEFCC8-4998-4C6C-8C1A189769480100.html
June 12th, 2004 at 6:13 am
i think that’s stupid for sueing britney, i mean come on the women is going threw alot why can’t everybody just leave her alone. You just want her money, and if she wanted to name her album that she can it’s not copying it god. I think you should lay off her you bunch of bitch
June 12th, 2004 at 8:38 am
>>For example yone could not create a company and trademark the name of “open for business”. <<
You CAN Trademark it! You Shouldn’t be Able To, but you frequently can. Another from sports … In the world of skydiving, for example, a popular “freeflyer” (which is to say, ‘freeflying” had been used as a name of an aerial discipline for a decade or more, where people fly their bodies in a mainly vertical attitude as opposed to a horizontal one) applied for a trademark on the word “freefly” and got it. Even though, (to skydivers) it was just about one of the most common words in the language. Course, enforcement is a bitch, but does succeed in wasting lots of everyone’s time.
June 12th, 2004 at 9:06 pm
“Personally a common phrase makes for a poor choice of trademark or brand name,”
can’t agree more, thats why Robertson (Lindows) should ultimatel;y triumph over the trademark infring. case with Windows.
can a word get any more generic than Window? Too bad a judge didnt poll a jury the same way back then before Win 3.11. “When you hear the word Window, do you think of a comp OS or a view port covered in glass?” I think we all know what the answer would have been back then. Glad the court decided to scrutinize this case from a perspective of back then rather than now, as MS wanted
June 12th, 2004 at 9:13 pm
it could be anyone instead of Spears, actually I wish it was just Clear Channel getting sued…its the principal that matters here, and the paradox the Recording comanies must eat right now
May 9th, 2005 at 6:30 pm
To Mr. Anderson, repesenting council to Mrs Spears. Check out further the proclaimed “InTheZone” CD produced by the San Diego band “Mariachis” CD. The CD label was manufactured after the fact to include “InTheZone” so as to appear that Lite breeze was actually using the “InTheZone” Lable to seemingly counter the use on the term “InTheZone” in her latest released “InTheZone” CD and Tour for the sole purpose of extorting money from her.
Mr. Garner is a “SMUCK” selling T-shirts over the internet from Thailand to fund his perverted habit and exploitation of little boys and girls for sex.
This is a real bad guy.. folks…….