PDA

View Full Version : Spike Jones Jr. blasts Spike Lee


grinner
06-23-2003, 09:13 PM
NEW YORK (AP) -- Lawyers for television network TNN filed an affidavit Monday by Spike Jones Jr., son of the legendary music satirist, saying it is "frightening" that filmmaker Spike Lee is trying to claim exclusive ownership of the name "Spike."

Lee won a court injunction June 13 that stopped Viacom, the nation's third-biggest media company, from changing TNN's name to Spike TV on June 16 as had been planned. Lee, who direct "Malcolm X" and "Do the Right Thing," claimed the rebranding was a deliberate attempt to hijack his name and reputation.

Viacom said it wanted to change the cable network's name to Spike TV to try to attract more men to an audience that is already about two-thirds male. The company said Lee, whose given name is Shelton Jackson Lee, could not prove that its use of the common name "Spike" referred to him.

Jones said in papers filed in Manhattan state Supreme Court that he and his family own and control the rights to the name, likeness, recorded performances and television shows that belonged to his father, the 1940s and '50s bandleader.

The family has sold an option to film and television rights to Good Medicine Films for production of a biographical movie about his father, Jones said in court papers. He says the tentative title of the movie is "Spike."

"I am very concerned that the court injunction in Spike Lee's case against Viacom and MTV (a TNN-affiliated company) may hinder and interfere with the efforts we have been making for many years to promote, sell and market both my father's work and the autobiographical commercial projects mentioned above," Jones said. "I do not believe that Spike Lee 'owns' or has any individual right to the use of the name 'Spike' or as an individual to prevent its use by others any more than I do. If anything, I believe my right would be superior to his."

Jones continued: "Indeed, I find it frightening that a court would allow Spike Lee to appropriate and acquire an exclusive (and free) ownership interest in the name 'Spike' in the television and entertainment field, preventing others with at least as legitimate an interest in using the name from doing so."

An attorney for Lee did not immediately return a telephone message left at his office Monday evening.

Jones' father had hits with the songs "Yes, We have No Bananas," "Der Fuehrer's Face" and "Don't Hit Your Grandma With a Shovel." "Weird Al" Yankovic might be considered his musical descendant.

Jones said a finding that Lee owns the name "Spike" would affect him professionally and economically. He said he had no objection to TNN being called "Spike TV" and never considered that Lee had any connection with the network when he first heard the name.

Jones' affidavit was filed during a scheduling conference Monday before Justice Walter Tolub. The judge said he would set a trial date on July 7.

Meanwhile, the judge scheduled a hearing for Tuesday on the surety bond Lee was required to post to cover Viacom's losses in case the company wins. Viacom has said the $500,000 Lee was ordered to post was inadequate. The company said it lost $16.8 million in the first week after the judge issued the injunction.

trubador
06-23-2003, 11:08 PM
:rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:
GO GET 'IM!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!

VBKatLou
06-24-2003, 02:56 AM
Glad to see Spike getting a taste of his own medicine. I was surprised that he won the injunction in the first place. Although I don't know why - this country has gotten way too sue-happy in the last couple of decades.

Dominar of Action
06-24-2003, 08:12 AM
VBKatLou, as I mentioned in another thread, the hurdles Shelton had to get over are very different and a *lot* lower at the injunction stage than at a trial, which is understandable when you consider that an injunction is designed to protect the plaintiff from irreparable harm by maintaining the status quo until the merits of the claim can be decided by a court. The defendant is protected from frivolous suits in most cases by requiring the plaintiff to furnish a refunding bond, like this article mentions.

So, I'm not surprised that the injunction was granted, although I am surpised to learn that the bond was set at only $500,000 and will be very suprised if Shelton wins.

vhsiv
06-24-2003, 08:39 AM
Dominar - What are the responsibilities of the plaintiff in a case like this, if the suit fails, once it is heard by a court. Shelton has already had to post a bond, but in this case, the damages to the defendant already seem to be disproportionate to the bond.

Would this matter be settled all at once - on the same docket - by the presiding court, or would Viacom have to file a countersuit against him after the present matter is concluded?

Likewise for Mr. Jones, Jr. - has he joined Viacom's case, or lodged a separate suit against Mr. Lee?

SeasonOfDeath
06-24-2003, 01:24 PM
I was wondering when Spike Jones' estate was going to enter the picture when I first read about this injunction...

I would think that it would only become confusing if TNN wanted to re-brand as "Spike Lee TV".:goof:

Dominar of Action
06-24-2003, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by vhsiv
Dominar - What are the responsibilities of the plaintiff in a case like this, if the suit fails, once it is heard by a court. Shelton has already had to post a bond, but in this case, the damages to the defendant already seem to be disproportionate to the bond.

Would this matter be settled all at once - on the same docket - by the presiding court, or would Viacom have to file a countersuit against him after the present matter is concluded?

Likewise for Mr. Jones, Jr. - has he joined Viacom's case, or lodged a separate suit against Mr. Lee? First of all, I have to provide a disclaimer and say that I'm *not* a litigator or intellectual property expert, so I only know enough about both subjects to be dangerous. Add to that the fact that NY law is at issue here and that I'm not licensed to practice in NY, and you'll realize that my opinion is not much more informed than yours ;)

However, that said, I can generally say that Viacom's available remedies against Spike Lee will depend on NY law. Some states (like Virginia) are pretty restrictive and don't allow defendants in most instances to even claim attorneys' fees from an unsuccessful plaintiff (on the theory that you don't want to discourage a plaintiff from bringing a case or force the plaintiff into settling out of fear of the fees the defendant is racking up), while other states are more generous. But in either event, Viacom would have to actually file a counterclaim for its costs and damages. (In Virginia, I believe the counterclaim would have to be filed before the hearing.) But since the amount of damages won't be known until after the case is settled, it's possible that a second hearing would be required in any event just to fix the amount. As for the refunding bond, it shouldn't limit the amount of damages Viacom can claim, if it decides to go that route. It just makes collection easier.

We don't have enough information from the article to know what role Spike Jones' family is playing, if any. Generally, I don't know as Spike Jones' family would have standing to actually intervene in the case itself since their rights to use the name are not being challenged AFAWK.

Does that help? I'm afraid litigation is an art unto itself, and one that I have never mastered (or care to, for that matter). There are dozens of permutations that could occur and it will be up to the attorneys to chose the right strategy re: filings, etc.

vhsiv
06-24-2003, 02:31 PM
Again, thanks!

I've got a family member who's a member of the NY Bar. All requests to him are usually prepended by a *groan*, but likely he'll 'hold forth' on the subject, once I ask him.

'Smarter than thou' is one of his favorite passtimes, but since you were already here, I couldn't resist.

Thanks again!

-v.