Ghost Rider taken to court, Illinois-style

Known only as lc05355, the IPKat's new informant - a student at Queen Mary, University of London - has just sent him this link to an exciting bit of litigation concerning copyright and character rights in Johnny Blaze. The trigger for the litigation is the February launch of the Ghost Rider movie in the lucrative and all-important North American market, since which time it has grossed an estimated $214.6 million (£109 million) in worldwide box-office revenue, according to Damages are sought for claims of
"copyright infringement, violations of federal and Illinois state unfair competition laws, negligence, waste, tortuous interference with prospective business expectancy, misappropriation of characters, unauthorized use of the characters and false advertising and endorsement".
The IPKat marvels at all these causes of action: it must be such fun litigating in the US. Merpel adds that a "spooksman" for defendants Sony said the studio had no comment on the suit and had not been served with the complaint.

Three Johnny Blazes here
Ghost Riders in the Sky here
Ghostbusters here
Ghost Rider taken to court, Illinois-style Ghost Rider taken to court, Illinois-style Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. "tortuous interference" sounds particularly painful.

    Like the article on earlier this week which said that the British computer hacker extradited to the US faced the possibility of being "interred at Guantanamo Bay"...


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.