John DeLorean's Widow Runs Out of Gas in Case Against Texas Company for 'Back to the Future' Royalties
The Third Circuit upheld a ruling that a settlement between the DeLorean Motor Co. and its founder's estate precluded a suit seeking back royalties from products using the company's images and logo, such as the hit move "Back to the Future."
December 09, 2019 at 04:20 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New Jersey Law Journal
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld a ruling that a settlement between the DeLorean Motor Co. and its founder's estate precluded a suit seeking back royalties from products using the company's images and logo.
"The question presented is whether the Settlement Agreement precludes the Estate's claims in this action," wrote Third Circuit Judge Joseph Greenaway Jr. in the Dec. 5 opinion. "The District Court found that it did, and the Estate appealed. … We will affirm."
The settlement was entered into by Sally DeLorean, on behalf of the estate of her late husband, John DeLorean, and DeLorean Motor Co. (Texas), or DMC Texas. DMC Texas sells hats, key chains and other merchandise bearing the image of the iconic DeLorean vehicle. The suit arose from the question of whether DMC Texas had authority to enforce an agreement with Universal Pictures that the late DeLorean entered into in 1989.
R. Scott Thompson of Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch in New York, who represents Sally DeLorean, could not be reached for comment.
William Mead Jr. of Litchfield Cavo in Cherry Hill, who is representing the automaker, also did not return a call.
The case centers around claims by the estate that the original DeLorean Motor Co., founded by DeLorean in the 1970s, owed royalties and commissions to the estate. DMC designed, manufactured, and sold an automobile named the DMC 12 with gull-wing doors that became iconic after being featured in the popular film series "Back to the Future." DeLorean died in 2005.
The Universal agreement came a decade after DMC went bankrupt. It granted Universal certain exclusive "rights in and to the name and appearance of the famous DeLorean automobile" to allow Universal to merchandise the "Back to the Future" films. Universal agreed to pay DeLorean 5% of net receipts from merchandising and commercial tie-ups in connection with the film trilogy, according to the decision.
In February 2018, the estate contacted Universal claiming overdue royalties. That April, Sally DeLorean alleged in a lawsuit that the estate was entitled to proceeds of the Universal agreement. She claimed she retained all rights stemming from the 1989 Universal agreement, and that she did not sign over any of those rights to DMC Texas.
DMC Texas moved for dismissal. The estate opposed that motion and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.
On Oct. 12, 2018, U.S. District Judge Jose Linares of the District of New Jersey granted dismissal. He declared Sally DeLorean signed over her rights when she settled a prior lawsuit relating to licensing of the DeLorean car's name, design and trademarks.
That previous suit filed by the widow in the District of New Jersey in 2014 sought to prevent licensing of the car's name and logo by DMC Texas. It ended with a September 2015 settlement in which she released her claims in exchange for payment in an amount that was not made public. It provided in part that DMC Texas would pay the estate the full amount of any claims asserted in the 2014 action and that the estate, in exchange, would release and discharge all claims "that were sought, or could have been sought, in the [2014 action]."
The agreement also acknowledged DMC Texas' "worldwide rights … to use, register, and enforce any of [sic] DeLorean Marks for any and all goods and services," according to documents.
Linares noted that both the settlement and the Universal agreement pertain to the use of those names and trademarks in the context of manufacturing and merchandising of products displaying the DeLorean automobile's image and brand.
The Third Circuit in its Dec. 5 opinion affirmed Linares' ruling, applying New Jersey contract law and rejecting the estate's arguments "because the Settlement Agreement barred the Estate from suing DMC Texas for the conduct it engaged in here."
Greenaway, siding with Linares, said both agreements overlapped. He rejected the estate's claims that DMC Texas' interference with the estate's contract with Universal only occurred after the 2014 action and therefore could not be contemplated by the settlement.
"Accordingly, we find that the Settlement Agreement shields DMC Texas from suit brought by the Estate for the conduct at issue here," the judge wrote. "For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court."
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 AllKelly Hart Secures $27M Trade Secrets Misappropriation Final Judgment in Fort Worth Trial
3 minute readFilm Company Alleges Elon Musk, Tesla Used AI to Mimic 'Blade Runner' Scene
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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