ILNews

James Dean estate sues Twitter over ‘@JamesDean’

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The estate of legendary Indiana film star James Dean has sued Twitter, claiming the Internet giant permitted the unauthorized personal Twitter account @JamesDean.

CMG Worldwide Inc. of Carmel represents the Dean estate among numerous other intellectual properties of deceased celebrities. The company seeks an injunction and compensatory and punitive damages, as well as the identities of five people believed to have used the @JamesDean account.

The lawsuit was removed Friday from Hamilton Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, where it is docketed before District Judge William T. Lawrence as James Dean Inc. et al v. Twitter, Inc., 1:14-cv-00183.

The suit claims Twitter allowed use of the @JamesDean account since at least September 2012 and that people using the account “placed objectionable content on the (Twitter) website.” It alleges that Twitter refused repeated requests from the CMG to cease unauthorized use of the trademarked James Dean name and copyrighted photos.

CMG claims trademark infringement, false endorsement, violation of Indiana’s Right of Publicity statute, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, conversion and deception.   

The complaint also includes a list of tweets from the account as shown Dec. 31, 2013, in which @JamesDean had 7,899 followers. Another exhibit shows communication between lawyers for the estate and Twitter in which Twitter “determined that (@JamesDean) is not in violation of Twitter’s Trademark Policy. The account is not being used in a way that is misleading or confusing with regard to its brand, location or business affiliation.”

Tuesday, the number of @JamesDean followers had risen to more than 8,300, where tweets about the suit dominated dozens of posts since Monday.
 

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

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT