Celebrity Archive

Ted Nugent, Dokken Drummer Arrested in Golf Cart

July 17th, 2012. By AbiK

Ted Nugent drummer and founding member of 80’s heavy metal band Dokken, Mick Brown was arrested last week after he was seen driving drunk in a golf cart. A golf cart he allegedly stole no less.

There’s something sad about this image, of course, if you reflect upon Brown once being atop a Kenworth 18-wheeler banging out “It’s Not Love” in a Dokken video circa 1985—now juxtaposed with the gleeful mug shot of him published circa July 8, 2012 (see pic above, compliments of Bangor, ME police). Brown is now 55. Party on.

Apparently, Ted Nugent was playing a gig in Bangor, ME with Styx (“Laaady…when you’re with me I’m smiling…”) and REO Speedwagon (“…and I’m gonna keep on lovin’ youuu…”). Afterward Brown allegedly took the opportunity to snag a golf cart (whose who knows?) and start tooling around a bit recklessly on a “foot path”.  After security officers got a tip about Brown’s joyride, they tried to stop Brown. He, however, allegedly sped past them and also shoved one of the officers.

According to the LA Times, Brown was finally stopped in his golf cart tracks and he was booked on the following charges: operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, driving to endanger, theft and assault. Brown was released on $4,000 bail.

The Times article also notes damage to two traffic cones—as mentioned in the official police report. Here’s the excerpt: “Officer Jordan reported that about a minute later he observed the golf cart with two women also on board near the Railroad Street grade crossing… No damage was reported to the cart although two traffic cones were damaged, one still under the cart, significantly so.”

At press time, no word on the cones’ condition. Or if Brown is still looking as giddy as he does here.

Tags: Bangor ME, Dokken, Drummer, Drunk Driving, DUI, DWI, Golf Cart, Heavy Metal, Mick Brown, REO Speedwagon, Styx, Ted Nugent
Posted in Celebrity | 2 Comments »

Bret Michaels Head Injury Lawsuit Settles

May 18th, 2012. By AbiK

Seems like ages ago now, but remember when Bret Michaels was all over the news after suffering that brain hemorrhage? Thankfully for him, his daughters and family, and Poison fans everywhere, he recovered—and we all got a glimpse of his ordeal when People magazine ran Michaels on its cover with the headline “I’m Lucky to be Alive”.

But while a hemorrhage can seemingly occur out of the blue, in Michaels case, there had been a head injury only the year before—in June, 2009. Michaels’ head injury occurred—rather publicly—during the 2009 Tony Awards, at which he and his band, Poison, were performing “Nothin’ But a Good Time”.

When the song was over, Michaels turned to leave the stage and that’s when a rather large piece of the set descended and appeared to hit Michaels in the head, knocking him down. He suffered a fractured nose and needed stitches in his lip.

Given the timing of the head injury, and then the brain hemorrhage less than a year later, Michaels filed a personal injury lawsuit in March, 2011 claiming the stage accident contributed to his life-threatening brain hemorrhage.

Both the Tony Awards and CBS were defendants in the lawsuit which alleged that the Tony Awards producers did not warn Michaels of a set change after his performance and CBS aired the accident thereby allowing it to be picked up by viewers who then made the accident go viral on sites like YouTube.

Needless to say, terms of the settlement—reached last week after a mediation session—are undisclosed. The head injury lawsuit did not specify the monetary damages being sought when Michaels filed it, however according to the Associated Press, Michaels did state that the injury hurt his ability to play at future shows.

Speaking of shows, now that Michaels is performing, fans can catch him on tour this summer–here’s list of Bret Michaels tour dates.

 

Tags: Brain Hemorrhage, Brain Injury, Bret Michaels, Bret Michaels Lawsuit, CBS, Head Injury, Poison, Settlement, TBI, Tony Awards
Posted in Accidents, Celebrity, lawsuits, Personal Injury | No Comments »

Naked Cowboy Stripped of Trademark Lawsuit Claim

March 5th, 2012. By AbiK

The Naked Cowboy trademark lawsuit has been given the boot.

Not familiar with the Naked Cowboy? He’s an ‘only in New York’ (nod to NY Post columnist Cindy Adams) institution. Though he hails from Ohio, he hangs out in the heart of Times Square donning only a cowboy hat and a pair of briefs—oh, and cowboy boots, though those typically reside outside of an onlooker’s range of focus. He also carries an acoustic guitar that he does, indeed, play.

He’s been doing his solo act in the heart of the city since 1997, and clearly he’s made not only a name for himself but apparently a living (and a following—he threw his cowboy hat in the ring as a 2012 US Presidential candidate). So much so, he’d trademarked his “Naked Cowboy” moniker—back in 2002. And, it goes without saying, once you’ve got a trademark, you’re going to protect it against trademark infringement.

So, when the Naked Cowboy became aware that the CBS soap opera “The Bold and the Beautiful” character, Oliver, appeared on the show that aired November 1, 2010 in a cowboy hat, cowboy boots and briefs and that he played a song on a (guess what?) guitar, well, the Naked Cowboy noticed some similarities.

There were differences, too—the Oliver character did not have “Naked Cowboy” written all over his guitar or on his cowboy hat.

Additionally, a clip of the scene was posted—by CBS—on CBS’ YouTube channel. The clip had the descriptive title “The Bold and the Beautiful – Naked Cowboy”. And, “naked” and “cowboy” were tags on the clip. CBS also bought adword advertising for the phrase “naked cowboy” on YouTube.

In order for the Naked Cowboy trademark infringement lawsuit to go ahead, the cowboy would’ve had to establish that not only did he had the valid registered trademark (he does) but that the trademarked name was used by the defendant for commerce and in connection with the sale or advertising of goods or services without the plaintiff’s consent.

The defendant’s use of the trademark would also have to be likely to cause confusion regarding the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant—for example, did it appear as though the Naked Cowboy (the real one) had sponsored or approved the use of a naked cowboy on the soap?

While the Naked Cowboy could clearly establish that he owned his own trademark, the court did not find that CBS had used the trademarked name for commerce; and, in terms of the adwords, the court deemed that while CBS did purchase the adwords, it did not place the words on any products or goods so, in effect, buying the adwords did not constitute commerce either.

The court also found that given the differences in the costumes of the Times Square-based Naked Cowboy and the naked cowboy on “The Bold and the Beautiful”, there is no likelihood of confusion.

All remaining charges of the trademark infringement lawsuit were also dismissed. And with that, the Naked Cowboy is left to tip his hat and head back to his urban frontier at the corner of 46th and Broadway.

For more, read the court opinion here.

Tags: CBS, Naked Cowboy, New York, The Bold and the Beautiful, Times Square, Trademark Infringement, Trademark Lawsuit
Posted in Celebrity, Intellectual Property, lawsuits | No Comments »

Metallica Drummer Accused of Stiffing P.A. Settles Lawsuit

November 17th, 2011. By AbiK

Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich recently settled a wage and hour lawsuit that had been filed by a former personal assistant, Steven Wiig. Wiig claimed a whole bunch of labor law violations: years of unpaid overtime (years!) along with alleged state and federal labor violations, breach of oral contract and continuing wages.

Yep, your run-of-the-mill California overtime lawsuit… NOT! We’re talking METALLICA!

Now, “Metallica” tends to conjure up headbanging images—think Beavis and Butthead (heh-heh)—and a lot of what some folks would call noise. Case in point, their live “Enter Sandman” video showcases some of those whiplash-inducing moves the band is famous for—and famous they are with that video alone having over 52,000,000 views on youtube. They’re the stuff of (hard) rock legend…off to never-never land! (In fairness, they’ve got some memorable ballads in their repertoire as well—like “Nothing Else Matters” (see video above)).

Ok. So they’re rock stars. And unless much has changed in the last oh, fifty plus years, rock stars tend to be magnets when it comes to wannabes wanting coveted jobs like “personal assistant”. Hell, it’s a twenty year old’s fantasy…screw getting a desk job after 4 years of hitting the books. Hit drop/add with the emphasis on “drop” and hit the road. Yeah, you’re down with the roadies, groupies, parties and perks. The all-access pass to backstage glam and prestige…you’re with the band now, man…(& you can advertise that fact with the t-shirt at right, at zazzle.com).

Oh wait—you expected to be paid on an hourly basis as well? And given a bonus each year? Ahh, but see—as with any situation where supply exceeds demand, prices get driven down. Lots of available labor? Labor gets cheap, right? And maybe that’s when labor starts to get—or at least feel—abused.

Hey, you wanted to be with the band…

So here we are with Lars Ulrich getting sued by his personal assistant. It’s an interesting case—similar to the PR hacks complaining not long ago about their compensation—because clearly this guy, Wiig, put up with the deal for “years” (2001-2009).  A decade. Why hang so long in a gig that you think is screwing you over?

According to the Marin Independent Journal, Wiig acted as Ulrich’s chauffeur, managed his art collection, handled his scheduling and “other tasks and errands” upon request. That translated to around 70 hours a week, which was upped to 80 hours a week when Metallica was on tour.

Wiig claimed he performed those duties for $45,000 a year. He also claims to have had a verbal agreement (red flag!) for annual bonuses. Of course, according to marinij.com, Ulrich’s side claims Wiig received $110,000 a year before bonuses, free rent and a free car. I suppose only the tax man knows for sure (wink-wink).

At any rate, the two sides have settled (terms not disclosed). My guess is that Wiig came out ahead on this one—but what to do now? Oh yeah, write a memoir “Snared: My Life with Lars Ulrich and Metallica”.

Tags: California labor law, Lars Ulrich, Metallica, Metallica Drummer, overtime lawsuit, Overtime Pay, Unpaid Overtime, Wage and Hour
Posted in Celebrity, Emerging Issues, Employment, lawsuits | No Comments »

Does Kim Kardashian have a Case v. Old Navy? You be the Judge

October 17th, 2011. By AbiK

Ok folks. The lookalike lawsuit filed by Kim Kardashian against Old Navy (owned by The Gap, Inc.) has not just faded away like rinse on your fave Old Navy Skinny Mini-Flare jeans—Color: Cottonwood, that is. Nope. Now The Gap is bringing in the big guns by hiring attorney Louis Petrich of Leopold, Petrich & Smith. The firm specializes in entertainment and intellectual property law.

So the big question is not what Kardashian will next be touting after her product line launch at Sears and—hush-hush—that failed Kardashian Kard debit card—but whether Old Navy in their classic tongue-in-cheek (and usually humorous) ads stepped over the line by using an attractive brunette to emulate a rather self-absorbed, high-maintenance, reality tv-type actress. Oh wait—I mean to allegedly channel the very likeness of Kim Kardashian to push their product line.

At least two statements in the complaint do confound me a bit:

1. The Infringing Ads are likely to cause confusion, and have caused actual confusion, in the minds of the consuming public as to an association of Kim Kardashian with Defendants’ products and services.

and

2. Defendants have created a likelihood of confusion in the minds of the consuming public as to the source, sponsorship, endorsement, or association of Kim Kardashian with Defendants, and with their goods, services and performances.

Ok, it’s the bit about “confusion”. I don’t watch Keeping Up with the Kardashians. It’s a painful reminder of Bruce Jenner circa 1976 and leads me to ask the unanswerable question “what happened?” Regardless, I don’t have a razor-sharp recollection of what the heck Kim Kardashian looks like. But, I do know that every tabloid I see when I’m checking out at the grocery store does show her in a much less-complimentary light than what Old Navy could possibly have mustered up with these ads (hello hip measurements anyone?).

Not to be catty—but, ok, I am—I’d be quite happy if someone used model Melissa Molinaro to allegedly represent me. My point though, is that there isn’t anyway, anyhow that I’d have “confused” Melissa with Kim. Are they a similar “look” in general? Yes—but I got that it was a spoof…a mockery. It’s a caricature of our times. And doesn’t the First Amendment provide for such artistic interpretation of very public theater?

While I certainly don’t agree that anyone has a right to use a celebrity without his/her express consent in the capacity of an endorsement or otherwise, Old Navy did not either a) use images of Kim Kardashian herself; or b) have her name splattered across the ads as an official endorsement.

We’ll have to see where this nets out—and feel free to chime in with your comments. The ad is shown in the video above—and by now, I presume you already know what Ms. Kardashian looks like.

Tags: intellectual property, Kardashian lookalike lawsuit, Kim Kardashian, Louis Petrich, Old Navy, The Gap
Posted in Celebrity, Emerging Issues, Intellectual Property, lawsuits | 2 Comments »