ILNews

COA sides with Live Nation in naming dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the Murat Temple Association’s claim that Live Nation Worldwide violated terms of its lease agreement.

MTA claims that Live Nation, which leases the MTA’s Indianapolis 1909 Murat Theatre Building and 1922 Mosque Building, breached its contract when it sold naming rights for those spaces to Old National Bank. But according to terms of the lease, Live Nation is entitled to the rights “enjoyed by the owner of the building,” and therefore is entitled to publicly rename the premises, the appeals court held.

The dispute began in January 2010 when MTA learned that Live Nation was planning to sell naming rights to part or all of the Shrine Center. On January 28, 2010, MTA delivered a letter to Live Nation stating that MTA’s approval was required for any name change of the leased premises.

On March 16, 2010, Live Nation announced that it had entered into a naming rights agreement with Old National. On that same day, MTA sent a letter to Live Nation and Old National objecting to any name change to the leased premises and asserting that Live Nation lacked the right to rename the leased premises. Nevertheless, Live Nation placed a marquee on the Mosque Building bearing the name “Old National Centre.”

Subsequently, MTA filed a complaint against Live Nation and Old National. MTA accused Live Nation of breach of contract and conversion. MTA accused Old National of conversion, tortious interference with a contractual relationship, and tortious interference with a business relationship.

MTA maintains that by placing a new marquee on the building bearing the name “Old National Centre” and by using the name “Old National Centre” in advertising, Live Nation has effectively and inappropriately renamed the entire Shrine Center, rather than just the leased premises. The appeals court held that according to Article XII of the lease, Live Nation was authorized to place “signs and advertising matter” “upon any part of the leased premises.” The public may perceive the Shrine Center differently due to the installation of the marquee and Live Nation’s use of the Old National Centre name in advertising, but regardless of the public’s perception, Live Nation has not exceeded the scope of its rights under the lease, the appeals court held.

The appeals court stated that in any conversion action, criminal intent is an essential element that must be proven. In Murat Temple Association, Inc. v. Live Nation Worldwide, et al., No. 49A02-1008-PL-952, the MTA alleged that Live Nation and Old National both knew that MTA had objected to their negotiations and had told them that Live Nation had no authority to sell naming rights for the Shrine Center in whole or in part. MTA further alleged that despite that knowledge of MTA’s objection, Live Nation and Old National intentionally and knowingly executed a naming rights agreement, thereby exerting unauthorized control over MTA’s right to publicly name the Shrine Center. However, because the lease authorizes Live Nation to rename the leased premises, MTA’s conversion claim fails, because neither Live Nation nor Old National exerted unauthorized control over MTA’s property, the appeals court held.

The appeals court stated that Section 1.01 of the lease agreement provides a broad grant of authority to Live Nation, including naming rights, and the parties negotiated only one limitation on naming rights, in Section 3.02, which states that Live Nation must retain the phrase “Murat Theatre” in the name of the 1909 Theatre Building. But that clause applies only to “theatre business within the leased premises,” not the entire leased premises.

“Presumably, if MTA had intended to further restrict Live Nation’s authority to rename all or part of the Leased Premises, the parties would have added additional limitations,” the COA wrote in its opinion.
 

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.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  2. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  3. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  4. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT