Brando Enterprises has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Central California against Madonna and Bhakti Touring, Inc., alleging the singer has been using an image of Marlon Brando after the owners of the trademark “expressly refused to grant such right to the Defendants,” Tim Kenneally of The Wrap reports.
The lawsuit alleges that, on behalf of Madonna,Brand Sense Partners requested the licensed use of Brando’s image for her Super Bowl halftime performance from Brando Enterprises representatives, which was granted for that one time only, Kenneally writes. Madonna requested permission to use the image again for her current tour; however, they were unable to reach an agreement. Specifically, CMG Worldwide, which represents Madonna, says Brand Sense agreed to a $5,000 fee and then, without warning, increased the fee to $20,000. According to the Complete Music Update website (CMU), Brando Enterprises implicitly barred the singer from using the image but Madonna did anyway.
According to Russia Today, Brando Enterprises seeks general and special damages, revenues and profits received from the use of the image, treble damages, statutory damages, attorney fees and costs, and an injunction that would bar the singer from using the image in the future.
The lawsuit alleges that, on behalf of Madonna,Brand Sense Partners requested the licensed use of Brando’s image for her Super Bowl halftime performance from Brando Enterprises representatives, which was granted for that one time only, Kenneally writes. Madonna requested permission to use the image again for her current tour; however, they were unable to reach an agreement. Specifically, CMG Worldwide, which represents Madonna, says Brand Sense agreed to a $5,000 fee and then, without warning, increased the fee to $20,000. According to the Complete Music Update website (CMU), Brando Enterprises implicitly barred the singer from using the image but Madonna did anyway.
According to Russia Today, Brando Enterprises seeks general and special damages, revenues and profits received from the use of the image, treble damages, statutory damages, attorney fees and costs, and an injunction that would bar the singer from using the image in the future.
Comment