Imitation: Flattering or Litigious?

[Lily Powers]

Interesting lawsuit filed against Stop Staring.

The estate of Bette Davis filed suit against a California vintage clothing store alleging that it is violating the publicity rights of the late actress by selling a dress called the “B Davis Dress.”

The suit claims that Stop Staring! sells vintage clothing from the 1940s and 1950s, and names many of their period era dresses after iconic people from that time period, including other actors.

The “B Davis” dress is named after Bette Davis, the complaint alleges, and some of the retailers specifically refer to it as the Bette Davis Dress.

Arguing that the conduct of the store and its owners was wanton, willful, and malicious, the suit claims that the defendants “have an obvious pattern and course of conduct of this behavior.”

“[T]hey are selling dresses named after other iconic figures for which, on information and belief, [they] lack the appropriate licenses and rights of publicity. Defendants, recognizing that they lack such rights, often resort to minor typographical errors or other small changes to the respective celebrity’s name in order to benefit from the celebrity’s name in the sale of goods while seeking to avoid liability for the clear misappropriation of the celebrity’s right of publicity,” according to the complaint.

Noting that Davis “was a legendary film actress whose name, persona and likeness are still worth substantial sums of money in the marketplace,” the suit does not seek a specific amount of damages but asks for the cessation of sales, recall, and destruction of all B Davis dresses.

Why it matters: Over the last few decades, the courts have recognized an expanding definition of publicity rights for celebrities, from a ruling finding a “sound-alike” singer in a commercial violated Bette Midler’s rights to a ruling that a robot wearing a blonde wig, gown, and jewelry in front of a Wheel of Fortune-like stage infringed on Vanna White’s right of publicity. The Bette Davis suit poses a new question: can a dress violate a celebrity’s personality?

Vintage style, pretty much, is often inspired by - and in some ways, pays homage to - style icons of the past. What do you think? Is this lawsuit warranted or frivolous?

And here's a pic (from TMZ) of the dastardly dress that started the suit:

 

[Miss_Bella_Hell]

If you want to protect your brand name, you can't let anyone get away with using it, no matter how small. If you allow someone to use your brand name without paying for the privilege, you can lose your rights to it.

 

[jetgirl]

Bette Davis isn't a brand name. She is a public figure.
I guess I would have more empathy for this suit if it was actually brought on by the legendary woman. That it is brought on by her descendants because her name is still "worth substantial sums of money in the marketplace" who had nothing to do with her talent doesn't really endear me to their cause.

 

[shazzabanazza]

I think the whole lawsuit is rediculous! So what if the dress is called Bette Davis... Its all a bit trivial isn't it?

 

[Lily Powers]

Personally, I see nothing remotely "Bette Davis" about the dress. Stop Staring could certainly call it by another name with little or no impact to their bottom line. I looked at their website and noticed they use design names like "MDMEN" or "HRLOW" so perhaps they had an inkling to proceed with caution as to using full names and thought these short-hand versions would block any problems.

 

[Lady Day]

That it is brought on by her descendants because her name is still "worth substantial sums of money in the marketplace" who had nothing to do with her talent doesn't really endear me to their cause.

But that's what an estate is. Its an entity established to protect and givepermission to the use and distribution of a person's work, and or persona.

Is Betty Davis her stage name? Yes. So it is a brand name. A lot of performers go through keeping their name as their property.

It would be different if customers called it by that name, but to put the name on their garment and not notify/ask permission from the estate then sell said garment for profit is stealing.

This isn't about whether we feel its okay for SS! to do this. I could care less, but the estate of the person who is being used to sell something but not receiving compensation for it is being taken advantage of.

I honestly think this is great publicity for SS! because now tons more women will know and want this dress.

LD

 

[Snowdrop]

Not to be pedantic or anything, but that article states that it's called the 'B Davis' dress, not actually the 'Bette Davis' dress and I'd be very interested to know how they know that "some retailers" refer to it as the Bette Davis dress, unless they went to all the stores or online sites themselves.
Personally, I think it's ridiculous and I hope the courts take the same view. And how on earth is naming a pretty dress after someone 'malicious'? I think these people need to find some actual problems to concern themselves with.

 

[Lady Day]

I see, they more than likely called it the B Davis dress instead of the Betty Davis dress as a way to skirt the infringement. But Im just insinuating.
I guess this will depend on how the court interprets that.

LD

 

[scottyrocks]

There are some fine lines to split here.

How much of a person's name is infringement? How many people are named Davis? Or have the first letter B before it? Is insinuation enough for cause infringement? Honestly, if they spelled it Betty instead of Bette, its no longer the same brand name.

Is it because the dress' style, combined with the dress' name, B Davis, makes one think of Bette Davis? I'm curious as to how this will play out.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Would the name have the same marketing value if they called it the "Barbara Davis Dress?"

Estates of celebrities enforcing control over the use of those celebrities' names and images after their death has been going on in an organized way since the '70s. There's an agency -- CMG, formerly the Curtis Marketing Group -- that actually specializes in representing the deceased.

 

[Amy Jeanne]

Stupid lawsuit. Next, we'll all be sued for mentioning Bette Davis' name on this forum. And then we'll be sued for telling a friend about a good Bette Davis film we saw on TCM, thus giving her publicity and promotion that was not authorized!

I know, I'm on the slipperly slope fallacy here, but I think this is just as silly.

 

[Puzzicato]

According to wikipedia (not always reliable, of course!) Bette Davis thanked Kim Carnes for making her "a part of modern times". So she probably would have liked the enduring fame. And it is passing on her name as an icon that gives her brand value! I get that her estate needs to protect the image, but are they not shooting themselves in the foot?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-RdAzkKlXY

 

[LizzieMaine]

Turns out Bette is herself a CMG client, which explains much. They have a history of being very aggressive in the courts.

The client list itself is fascinating. Who'd have ever imagined Marilyn Monroe, Scott Baio, and Malcolm X would all have the same agent?

 

[Berlin]

Stupid lawsuit. Next, we'll all be sued for mentioning Bette Davis' name on this forum. And then we'll be sued for telling a friend about a good Bette Davis film we saw on TCM, thus giving her publicity and promotion that was not authorized!

I know, I'm on the slipperly slope fallacy here, but I think this is just as silly.

I am with this!

I am not interested in Stop Staring! myself, but the dresses are like hot cakes, is what I know. Everyone and there mother wants or has one, and I think the prosecutors see some money in this! . People shouldn't carp at everything.

 

[Lily Powers]

Wonder if this lawsuit will be a catalyst for other such legal actions? The estate of Bettie Page may be gearing up for a Bettie Page Clothing cease and desist.

 

[Amy Jeanne]

Wonder if this lawsuit will be a catalyst for other such legal actions? The estate of Bettie Page may be gearing up for a Bettie Page Clothing cease and desist.

I read somewhere that they have the proper liscensing so they should be ok.

 

[Kitty_Sheridan]

So did Bette ever wear this/a dress like it? Doesn't look like her style to me -not classy enough (sorry) is it called the Bette Davis? No, it's called the B Davis. My mum's plumber is Brian Davis. To be honest it's more his style.
Silly, silly lawsuit.
I do presentations on WW1/ww2 and the Victorian era here in the UK. A woman started using my name last year and is now causing me no end of hassle. Can I do anything about it? Nope. Equity don't register nicknames, so I just have to tolerate her stupidity.
Meh...
K

 

[Romy Overdorp]

I wonder if it ever will be an actual case. I don't think so!

The Bette Davis suit poses a new question: can a dress violate a celebrity’s personality?

Oh come on, that's just plain silly. It's not like they've made a dress that a crackw%%re would wear...

 

[Lady Day]

The point isnt that Miss Davis wore a dress like this. The point is that SS! is using the actress' name to specifically brand the dress to the actress. Its selling by association and I think the estate is well within their right to seek legal action on it.

Its like if someone use your name and credibility to sell....nose plugs (insert anything here really...floor tile, messenger bags, porn). They are intentionally using your name/likeness/accomplishments to sell this product. They are not telling you they are doing this and did not ask you for permission, but apparently your association with the product sells a lot of nose plugs and you are not being cut in for profits. You'd be kind of pissed, wouldn't you?

LD

 

[Romy Overdorp]

Yes I get the point, I was kinda pissed when I found my picture in a magazine to support an article about music.
I love music, but I was surprised that the photographer never asked permission to use it. Plus I never knew that the pic was taken at all!
So yes I understand the statement they are making. But I don't think that the dress has violated her personality, but they should have asked for permission.