ILNews

  • Home

Bird settles French Lick lawsuit

IBJ Staff
October 8, 2008
Keywords
Courts, District Courts, Orange County, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, lawsuit
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Larry Bird has settled a lawsuit against a bed-and-breakfast that operates from his boyhood home in the southern Indiana town of French Lick.

Attorneys for the basketball icon and Legend of French Lick LLC would not discuss the settlement, saying the parties had signed a confidentiality agreement.

The Web site of Legend of French Lick Resort carries a disclaimer saying the resort is "not affiliated with, or endorsed or sponsored by Larry Bird or the Larry Joe Bird Revocable Living Trust." It was not immediately clear whether the disclaimer was used prior to the settlement, which was closed yesterday.

The suit was filed May 2 in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division.

Bird, president of basketball operations for the Indiana Pacers and a former NBA star, has registered his name as a trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Bird sold the house to Georgianna Lincoln and Christopher Cooke in the summer of 2007. Then, the suit claimed, the couple marketed the site as Legend of French Lick, the Former Home of Larry Bird Resort.

Ice Miller in Indianapolis represented Bird. McNeely Stephenson Thopy & Harrold in Shelbyville represented Lincoln and Cooke.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer

  1. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  2. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  3. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

  4. Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone

  5. John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.

ADVERTISEMENT