'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
© 2025 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 AllArbitrators Under Fire for Allegedly Forcing Workers to 'Stay or Pay' Employers
5 minute readNJ Appellate Division Holds 'Clickwrap' Arbitration Provision Enforceable
5 minute readAppellate 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
Trending Stories
- 1Paul Hastings, Recruiting From Davis Polk, Continues Finance Practice Build
- 2Chancery: Common Stock Worthless in 'Jacobson v. Akademos' and Transaction Was Entirely Fair
- 3'We Neither Like Nor Dislike the Fifth Circuit'
- 4Local Boutique Expands Significantly, Hiring Litigator Who Won $63M Verdict Against City of Miami Commissioner
- 5Senior Associates' Billing Rates See The Biggest Jump
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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