DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum D.Wade sued in Antitrust Lawsuit -- for his own name/image

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4826173


WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- An antitrust lawsuit against Dwyane Wade should be dismissed because the Miami Heat star has the right to control licensing of his name and image, Wade's attorneys told a federal judge Thursday.
Wade


But lawyers for Wade's ex-partners in a failed restaurant venture contended that the NBA star violated antitrust laws by walking away, and they want $90 million in damages from Wade. They argue that when Wade withdrew permission to license his name, he illegally squelched competition for valuable personalized items such as signed basketballs, T-shirts and hats.

Wade's attorneys told U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra that a celebrity has never been accused in a U.S. court of wrongly monopolizing his own memorabilia market. Wade's decision to terminate his deal with partners in the D. Wade's Place chain was within his rights to license his own image as he sees fit, attorney Robert Turken said.

"If you have a right to give a license, you have a right not to give a license. If you have a right not to give a license, you have a right to take it away," Turken said.

Marra said he would rule on the request to dismiss the case "as soon as possible" but didn't specify when.

Bruce Fein, attorney for the former partners, said Wade's decision to abandon the project triggered the antitrust violation because it removed a competitor in the memorabilia business. D. Wade's Place was envisioned as a national chain of upscale sports restaurants that would sell Wade items at its locations and on the Internet. Only two Florida locations opened and they quickly closed.

Wade's contract gave the venture rights to use his name and likeness forever, Fein said.

Wade ranks fifth in the NBA with a scoring average of 27 points per game, and he has lucrative deals with Nike's Jordan Brand, T-Mobile and Gatorade.

"There are no substitutes for Dwyane Wade personalized memorabilia," Fein said. "He is a unique market -- a single brand. Once he gave the license, my clients invested millions of dollars. All that money was stranded."

Turken predicted if Wade's former partners prevailed, dozens of lawsuits would crop up around the country accusing famous people of trying to monopolize their names and images when they withdraw permission for their use.

"You would open the door to an antitrust violation explosion," Turken told the judge.

Wade, who turns 28 on Sunday, did not attend the hearing. Wade did take part in meetings last year aimed at reaching a settlement, but the talks hit an impasse.

Wade's former partners have accused him in separate lawsuits of reneging on the D. Wade's Place contract and walking away from a deal to license his name to for charter schools. The schools for at-risk children are up and running without Wade's involvement.

well if I understand then correctly, as long as they can sell D Wade stuff, then they have no case. What's to keep them from buying balls that are autographed and then re-selling them.

Like these guys don't already make enough money off the public.

If Wade doesn't want the public to be allowed to use his name, then he can sell his "wares" elsewhere.

Where is he going to do that ?

Exactly,....he can't.

Greed.

Actually, I disagree entirely.... and the amount of money they make is 100% completely irrelevant to anything and everything.


I fully support a person being able to have monopolistic control over their own image/likeness, etc...
I also fully agree with his lawyer's stance that if you have the right to give license and the right to deny license, you have the right to cancel license.



Think about it - how would you like it if people found a way to profit off of YOUR likeness without YOUR consent and weren't required to share any of it with you?
I think you'd be pretty pissed off at that.

you mean like NCAA Footbal and Basketball games?

oh wait, they don't have names...they just look and play extremely similar with the same #'s to those on the team. complete coincidence.

Yes and no.... as a condition of maintaining their "Amateur" status to play in that league, they are not allowed to earn money, etc for what they are doing.

If they are willing to forfeit their college eligibility, then yes, they by all means should take control of their "brand". As for the NCAA, it is their league - so until something else comes along or someone convinces them to change, it is what it is. If the school kids want to play in that league, they agree to it's rules.

i'm not sure I completely buy that...it's not like they can say 'no' to playing in NCAA football in order to get to the NFL. For basketball, that argument sticks because they could conceivably go to Europe or tour with AND1 for a year.

also, the game for this past season doesn't go on sale until July of this year....so EA is technically infringing on 'at least' the athletes who have graduated or are declaring for the draft. however, other than the cover-athlete, they do not pay anything to any of them (this is part of the basis for the ongoing lawsuit against EA and the NCAA)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aeGuoaTKMLc8&refer=home