Lionsgate Sues TD Ameritrade For Seven Figures Over Lame Reference To A Dirty Dancing Line
from the cha-cha-cha dept
Lionsgate Studios, as you may remember, was last seen absolutely losing its mind over the leak of Expendables 3, which [insert snarky comment about movie quality here]. The studio's reaction to the leak was to peel off a massive lawsuit, get a restraining order, and go takedown crazy. Between those actions and the studio's willingness to go the DMCA and/or legal route in silencing a documentary about The Pirate Bay, not to mention a video that the Copyright Office itself used as an example of Fair Use, it's clear that Lionsgate doesn't mind firing off legal shots at questionable targets.
And, in case you thought this trend had somehow abated, it hasn't. The latest example is Lionsgate apparently suing TD Ameritrade for trademark violation after the latter had included in one of its advertisements the line, "Nobody puts your old 401(k) in the corner." You can see the commercial here, but essentially: a guy holds up his piggy bank in a manner similar to the dance moves from the movie.
Yeah, it's an imperfect reference to a line from Dirty Dancing, "Nobody puts Baby in a corner." Lionsgate apparently owns the rights to that movie. The studio has also apparently filed for trademark on the line for items such as books, clothing and household items. None of those categories appears to include financial services, but that hasn't stopped Lionsgate from demanding a ton of money for the use in the now-discontinued commercial.
A letter sent by Lionsgate on April 2 is said to have demanded that TD America cease the advertisement and pay Lionsgate a seven figure amount to settle its claim. (Besides trademark, the film studio is said to have "alluded" to copyright as well.). In an action filed on Friday in New York federal court seeking declaratory relief, TD America and its marketing agency Havas Worldwide say they wish "to put to rest the baseless, overreaching claims asserted by Lionsgate."And so TD Ameritrade is seeking relief via the court to basically swat Lionsgate off its back, like some kind of seven-figure-sucking mosquito. Not all use requires permission, after all, and a trademark case involving trademarks that have been applied for areas in which the use doesn't occur doesn't seem like great legal footing from Lionsgate's standpoint. Instead it comes across as a pure moneygrab, attempting to extract cash for the use of a line from a movie released in the 80's that no reasonable person had any possible chance of being confused by. If the studio wants to actually build a case around the idea that the public is really stupid, let it try, but I expect it to back down instead.
The plaintiffs say there's no evidence that anyone was confused while the advertisement ran for a seven-month period. They add they have no plans to use the ad in the future.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: advertising, baby in a corner, trademark
Companies: lionsgate, td ameritrade
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why?
Rule 1. Have high quality advisors to help you run business. Listen to their advice.
Rule 2. Ignore high quality advisors when they intrude upon your vision for business with advice that is contrary to your vision. Advisors are competent in their areas but not in any area outside of their specialities. Accountants and lawyers should NEVER but put in charge of the business, they will destroy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
I mean, sleazy moves like this are hardly new for the major studios and labels, so why would you even consider giving them any of your money anyway at this point? Forget them, forget the crap they push out, and spend your money on people and companies that deserve it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
Essentially you pay us for nothing or we sue you would be their ideal world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slightly deaf old lady: Excuse me, dear?
Edward Lewis: He said he liked it better than The Pirates of Penzance.
I know, I know. Completely different movie. But at least I got a pirate reference in there. P)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trademark? Seriously?
Don't trademarks have to be registered? Did they register "No one puts baby in the corner" as a trademark? If so, the how? What product do they trade under that name?
I could see this as a COPYRIGHT infringement suit. They own the copyright to the movie. But I feel that this fair usage of copyrighted material since it is a creative derivative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trademark? Seriously?
The United States, Canada and other countries also recognize common law trademark rights, which means action can be taken to protect an unregistered trademark if it is in use. Still common law trademarks offer the holder in general less legal protection than registered trademarks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
April 2nd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What would happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Go back to barter? You're right, I don't like it. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What???
I watched ~20 minutes of 'Roadhouse' and hit the bricks.
I've been 'sent to a corner' and that's the only inference I ever got from the TD ad I saw maybe three times.
This is just a busted ass bunch of Lawyers and Accountants driving Lionsgate (see Anonymous Coward upstairs), and it's kinda funny 'cuz they'll get burned I'm sure...
Cheers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]