O'l Carroll really did it this time

[Jollyroge]

Browne Woods & George Announces That Disney's Hollywood Pictures Has Entered
into a New ``Quitclaim'' with Halicki Triggering a New Lawsuit against
Carroll Shelby & Unique Performance
Oct 23, 2007 4:25 PM CDT

LOS ANGELES-- (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Denice Halicki, The Original Gone in 60
Seconds, LLC and Halicki Films, LLC filed a new lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Central District armed with a new ³Quitclaim
Agreement² and famed trial attorney Allan Browne of Browne Woods & George
LLP. Mr. Browne filed the action on behalf of Halicki and her companies
against Carroll Shelby, Carroll Shelby International, Inc., Carroll Shelby
Licensing, Inc., Carroll Shelby Engineering, Inc., Carroll Shelby Motors,
Inc., Carroll Shelby Distribution International, Inc., Carroll Hall Shelby
Trust, Unique Performance, Unique Motorcars, Inc., and Sanderson Sales &
Marketing for copyright and trademark infringement, Case No. CV-07-06859
SVW.

Hollywood Pictures Company (HPC), a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company
and producer of the 2000 remake of ³Gone in 60 Seconds,² entered into the
Quitclaim Agreement with Halicki to clear up and forever set the record
straight over Halicki¹s rights to the starring character ³Eleanor² from the
movie ³Gone in 60 Seconds,² which also featured Nicolas Cage and Angelina
Jolie. The Quitclaim Agreement absolutely confirms that Halicki, and not any
other person or entity, owns the right, title and interest in and to all
merchandising for ³Eleanor,² the instantly-recognizable, and iconic ³souped
up² 1967 Fastback Ford Mustang, which is the ³signature² of the movie ³Gone
in 60 Seconds² 2000 (www.gonein60seconds.com).

The complaint alleges that, without the authority, consent or knowledge of
Halicki, the defendants, led by Carroll Shelby, entered into an improper and
malicious scheme and conspiracy to manufacture, market and sell ³knock offs²
of ³Eleanor² to the public, billing the car as authentic ³Eleanors² from
³Gone in 60 Seconds.² In doing so, the complaint alleges that the defendants
knowingly and deliberately sought to capitalize on and exploit ³Eleanor¹s²
fame from the movie, even though the defendants had no association with,
participation in, or connection with the creation or development of the
movie or ³Eleanor.² Indeed, the movie and ³Eleanor² are the brainchild of
Halicki¹s late husband, H.B. ³Toby² Halicki, known to all in the movie and
automobile circles as ³The Car Crash King.²

The complaint further alleges that, despite their lack of any right or
interest in the character of ³Eleanor² or the movie, the defendants, in
particular Carroll Shelby, sought to mislead the public into thinking that
they had created ³Eleanor,² they owned a right to ³Eleanor² and that they
had the permission and authority of Halicki to produce and sell the ³knock
off² vehicles. The complaint alleges that Shelby went so far as to falsely
claim that he ³shares the rights with Disney for the Eleanor name.²
Moreover, even though the defendants knew that Halicki owned the rights to
³Eleanor² and ³Gone in 60 Seconds,² the defendants intentionally took no
action to obtain a license from Halicki to merchandise the cars. Instead, as
alleged in the complaint, Steve Sanderson, the principal of defendant
Sanderson Sales & Marketing, met with defendant Carroll Shelby and officers
of defendant Shelby companies, including Neil Cummings and John Luft, and
Douglas Hasty, Chris Layne and Richard Kearby, the founders of the Unique
defendants to discuss obtaining permission from Halicki and HPC to produce
the ³Eleanor² cars.

According to Sanderson, when asked directly about contacting Halicki and
HPC, Carroll Shelby reportedly replied, ³If they sue me, I¹ll sue them right
back.²



Browne Woods & George LLP
Allan Browne, Esq.
310-274-7100
abrowne@bwgfirm.com
www.brownewoods.com

[CobraEd]

He is screwed:

http://www.smartbrief.com/news/aaaa/...9-3A92D8633BDD

.

[Power Surge]

I don't really understand this. The only thing used from the original movie was the actual name of the car. The from the second movie, which is the car being duplicated and sold, had nothing to do with the car in the first movie other than sharing the name. The lawsuit makes it sound like Shelby is being sued for selling copies of the car that Haliki has the rights to, but how can she have the rights to something that had nothing to do with the first movie? The only thing I can see a lawsuit over is the name.

[Wayne Maybury]

I think that someone should immediately go out to get the popcorn and beer. I predict that this is going to be a long one.

Wayne

[Tim Brewer]

I agree with Sal. But, Shelby's name should not ever been associated with that car in any way or form. Carroll just wanted a piece of the pie and Unique just wanted to sell more cars by having Carroll's name associated with the car. By the way, are these cars still in the registry?

[CobraEd]

More importantly, . . . Are they real, or continuation Eleanors

.

[imagine2frolic]

CobraEd, Just go ahead, and stir the pot a little bit more......

[1ntCobra]

Didn't she sue Shelby for the same thing a couple of years ago and lost?

Maybe she thinks she has better lawyers this time.

[Slither]

I don't think "Elenor" would have been as notable if Shelby hadn't decided to build replicas of the car. Shelby made the car famous by reproducing it, along with Unique. Right or wrong?

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by 1ntCobra

Didn't she sue Shelby for the same thing a couple of years ago and lost?

Maybe she thinks she has better lawyers this time.

2004...

http://forums.bradbarnett.net/archiv...hp/t-7062.html

I wonder if this law suit is the original or a replica?

[1985 CCX]

No doubt UP saw this one coming and cashed out. Hey, Shelby will hold anyone or thing liable if he thinks it will net him some cash. It goes both ways. For example replica manufacturers, shirts, jackets, pins, have all heard from him; its all for the dollar at this point. You have to give him credit at his age and still going strong.

The very thing that made him famous all these years "Replicas" has now come full circle. Can't we all just get along?

[Woodz428]

She did lose a case a few years ago. I'm no lawyer, but the difference I see is that Disney, the makers of the movie, state that she is the legitimate owner of the trademark name. I don't believe they were involved in the original case and that may have been why she lost. I think that, as far as trademark rights go, Disney is much more versed in it than any of the Shelby industries people. I amy be wrong. I do remember some blacklight poster from the 60s/70s that depicted an assortment of Disney characters having an orgy, Disney sued under trademark infringement and now those posters are probably very valuable. If any are left.
Since the original creator as well as the makers of the new movie, and I would imagine the builders of the "Eleanor", are involved in the same action, it may play out differently now. Kind of like Shelby with the Cobra name, he couldn't win because Ford owned the name. When they became partners in that action, it was a different case.

[Excaliber]

What strikes me as different and interesting in this latest round of the suit is that Disney has apparently signed a 'quit claim' to the name. Which I think will add support to her case, in essence, Disney has said, "Your right, were sorry, no go after Shelby."

Mere speculation and rumor mongering on my part, perhaps Jamo could enlighten us to the ramifications of the Disney 'Quit Claim' legal thing. I can just see Shelby making some claim like, "Well, she abandoned the thing, didn't use the name, just walked away from it all..." Man, talk about what goes around comes around!

EDIT: You guys are quick, I wasn't the only one to see this Disney connection as making this a 'new ball game' for a lawsuit!

[Jamo]

Extremely short answer: Quit claim is used by one party to disavow any rights or ownership over real or other property.

I'm not up on the earlier case she filed, but it may be that they argued she could not prove sufficient ownership/interest to bring it at that time. This evidently helps clear that up.

[Durt]

I also read that Shelby recently discovered the components to several Buzz Lightyear action figures in a barn and plans to market them as "Continuation Buzzes."
Prices haven't been established, but rumor has it an autographed version could fetch as much as six figures.

[Dan Stryffeler]

I don't know if this clears anything up, (text below is from the earlier suit), I fell asleep before I could read all the way through it.

I'm no lawyer, but if the first suit was dismissed because Disney, not Halicki, had rights to "Eleanor", than Disney subsequently doing a quit claim would give those rights back to Halicki for the new suit???

From the web...

The widow of the producer-director of the 1974 film "Gone in 60 Seconds" has filed an opening brief with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals seeking reversal of a lower court's dismissal of her copyright and trademark infringement claims against legendary carmaker Carroll Shelby over use of a replica "star" car from the 2000 Disney remake.

In November 2005, U.S. District Court Judge S. James Otero dismissed Denice Shakarian Halicki's lawsuit against Shelby. Otero found, among other things, that only the Walt Disney Co. and its Hollywood Pictures, which produced the 2000 film, had standing to assert claims against Shelby, who partnered with a car manufacturer to recreate the original car used in the remake.

Halicki inherited the rights to the original film and the car nicknamed "Eleanor" -- a 1971 Ford Mustang that was made to resemble a 1972 Fastback Mustang -- after her husband H.B. Halicki died in 1989 in a freak accident on the set of "Gone in 60 Seconds 2."

After a legal battle with her late husband's family, Halicki sold remake rights to Disney in 1995. The remade film was released in 2000 and starred Nicolas Cage and Angelina Jolie.

As part of the deal, Halicki and Disney agreed she retained the rights to the original film and the right to merchandise the original Eleanor.

In the 2000 remake, Eleanor is a 1967 Ford Mustang Shelby GT-500. Shelby, who designed his namesake car and owns rights to it, was aware that the new Eleanor was a version of his classic car, but never sued Disney over the use of it in the film.

After the remake's release, Shelby submitted a trademark application for "Eleanor" for dye-cast metal toy cars based on the remake's Eleanor. He also registered "Eleanor" for "vehicles, namely automobiles engines for automobiles and structural part for automobiles."

Carmaker Unique Motor Cars also filed an application for the "Eleanor" trademark. Shelby and Unique eventually teamed to create Eleanor remake cars that sold for $109,000-$189,000.

But Halicki claims both Shelby and Unique Motors are using her "Gone in 60 Seconds" and "Eleanor" marks to promote their replicas without her permission.

In a 77-page opening brief filed April 16, Halicki says the lower court, which criticized her for failing to register "Eleanor" until seven months after filing suit, "overlooked a basic reason, independent of the agreement, why Halicki has standing to sue: to protect Halicki's longstanding common law rights to the unregistered trademarks. Those rights apply, no matter what the remake Eleanor looks like, because they concern the defendant's use of words not a visual appearance."

Additionally, Halicki contends the defendants have no fair use defense for their "outright appropriation of Halicki's marks."

Shelby currently owns six U.S. trademarks consisting of the name "Shelby" for automobiles and other related products.

Though he elected not to sue Disney, Shelby did file a counterclaim against Halicki for trademark infringement for the unauthorized use of the GT-500 knockoff in the film because Halicki's husband was credited as a producer on the remake.

Otero dismissed those claims on a summary judgment motion by Halicki. Deadline to file an opening brief for that appeal is Aug. 13, according to the court docket.

The brief was filed by Timothy Coates and Jens Koepke of Greines Martin Stein & Richland in Beverly Hills.

The case is Halicki v. Carroll Shelby International Inc., 06-55806.

[Tony Radford]

9th circuit court of appeals - aren't these the liberal wackos that condone teaching sex education to third graders using porn stars and that parents have no right to teach it themselves? I think one of the judges is married to a high-up at the ACLU. Maybe I've been watching O'reilly too much.

[ng8264723]

Carrol made a nice car in the 60's. Now his business practices are scummy. For crying out loud how much money does he need to make? He is a bitter old man. It was aweful what he put factory five through. Good for the brothers they survived. Unfortunately, he costed all his car lovers the final bill by driving up the replica costs. Screw over SAAC and lastly, fight with the widow what a class act.............

[Durt]

I don't know that I would attribute quite so much deliberate acrimony to Shelby regarding this particular chapter in the endless parade of Shelby versus the World litigations.
Ol' Shel's had more lawsuits than hot meals. His interest in this deal is right up there with whether his socks match.
He probably has it scheduled between haircut and nap.