'Back to the Future' Royalties Central to Battle Over DeLorean Auto Legacy
Two camps are battling in New Jersey federal court over royalties paid by Universal Pictures for use of the car that became a time machine in the "Back to the Future" movie trilogy.
April 24, 2018 at 05:02 PM
5 minute read
Two camps are battling in New Jersey federal court over royalties paid by Universal Pictures for use of the car that became a time machine in the “Back to the Future” movie trilogy.
Sally DeLorean, the widow of auto executive John DeLorean, claims in a suit filed on Monday that DeLorean Motor Co. of Humble, Texas, misrepresented itself to Universal as owner of the DeLorean name. The suit says the Texas company, which has said it wants to make new replica versions of the car, collected a “substantial payment” of royalties from Universal that she said properly belong to the late automaker's estate.
The estate of DeLorean, who died in 2005, litigated once before with the Texas-based DeLorean company in New Jersey federal court, reaching a settlement in 2015. Under the settlement, the estate agreed not to oppose limited use of the DeLorean name and logos by the Texas company. But that company subsequently used the settlement to convince Universal to hand over a “six-figure” payment of royalties related to the car's movie appearances, said R. Scott Thompson of Lowenstein Sandler in Roseland, New Jersey, who represents the estate and Sally DeLorean.
The automaker's estate seeks a declaration that it did not transfer its rights to movie royalties to the Texas company when the two parties settled the prior suit. The estate also seeks an accounting of all sums paid by Universal to the Texas company and an order directing that those funds be paid to the estate.
Under the accord between DMC Texas and the DeLorean family, the Texas company agreed to pay an unspecified sum to the estate, according to court documents. The estate said in the settlement that it would release the defendants from “any and all claims and causes of action” that were sought or could have been sought in the litigation. Also under the settlement, the estate agreed not to challenge the use by DeLorean Texas of the name “DeLorean Motor Company,” or DMC.
DeLorean Texas' attorney in the prior case, William Mead Jr. of Litchfield Cavo in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, said he was not familiar with the latest suit and had not been retained to handle it. The company did not respond to a phone call or an email about the case.
The DeLorean DMC-12, with its gull-wing doors and brushed stainless steel body panels, was produced from 1981 to 1983 in a factory in Northern Ireland. Only about 9,000 were made. But it earned a place in pop culture in 1985 when Marty McFly, played by Michael J. Fox, traveled through time in a DeLorean radically modified by Doc Brown, played by Christopher Lloyd, in “Back to the Future.”
The DeLorean is at the center of the plotlines in the three “Back to the Future” films: Fox's character uses the car to journey to the past and future, including one trip where he encounters his own parents as teenagers.
John DeLorean signed a contract with Universal in 1989, providing royalty payments for use of the vehicle in “Back to the Future.” The contract gave DeLorean a 5 percent cut of Universal's net receipts for merchandising deals in which the car is a “key component.” Universal made some payments under the agreement but stopped at a point in time that is unknown by the estate, according to the suit. The estate could not enforce DeLorean's rights at the time of his death because it did not have a copy of the agreement, the suit claims.
Thompson said the estate approached Universal in February about royalty payments pursuant to the 1989 contract, only to learn that the Texas DeLorean company had sought to collect the royalties a few months before. Thompson said he didn't know how much DeLorean Texas collected in royalties but he believed it was a six-figure sum.
Thompson said DeLorean Texas started out as a club for DeLorean owners. It sells used DeLoreans and DeLorean parts and has proposed production of new, replica versions of the car, although that venture has yet to get off the ground, according to the company website.
Although the estate holds the commercial rights to the DeLorean name, it has not made much use of it over the years, while DeLorean Texas has been using the name for commercial purposes, which gives it certain rights, said Thompson.
More than 30 years after the movie's release, the “Back to the Future” name and the DeLorean time machine are still being licensed by companies such as Lego and Nike, said Thompson.
Sally DeLorean feels DeLorean Texas has wrongly represented itself as the rightful owners of the company's intellectual property, and she wants to set the record straight, said Thompson.
“Any time they surface and overstep what we believe are their actual rights, she becomes concerned,” Thompson said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAppellate Division Ruling on Uber Eats Contract Highlights Evolution of 'Holding the Pen' Concepts
3 minute readFortune 500 Company Sues Metals Supplier Alleging It Used Proprietary Info Obtained During Bidding Process to Poach Talent
'A Confounding Record' Results in Sanctions for Discovery Violations in NJ Fed Court
4 minute readFTC's Ban on Noncompete Agreements Struck Down on the Eve of Implementation
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250