Experience Hendrix L.L.C. v. Hendrixlicensing.com Ltd.

ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION

ORDER

The Opinion filed January 29, 2014, appearing at 742 F.3d 377 , is amended sua sponte to remove footnote 6.

A copy of the our amended decision and original concurrence is attached to this Order and filed concurrently with this Order.

With this amendment, the panel has voted unanimously to DENY the petition for REHEARING and the petition for REHEARING EN BANC. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter. Fed. R.App. P.35.

The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for panel rehearing or for rehearing en banc will be entertained.

OPINION

This litigation stems from a dispute over the commercial use of a deceased celebrity’s image, likeness, and name. The sole heir of deceased rock legend Jimi Hendrix formed two companies, Plaintiffs Experience Hendrix, L.L.C., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Authentic Hendrix, L.L.C. (collectively “Experience Hendrix”). Among other things, Experience Hendrix owns trademarks that it uses to sell and license products related to Jimi Hendrix. In this litigation,…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur in much of the majority’s opinion. I agree-with the majority’s conclusion that the district court erred when it determined that the Washington Personality Rights Act (WPRA) is unconstitutional. I also agree that the district court correctly determined that Defendant Pitsicalis’s use of “Hendrix” infringed Experience Hendrix’s “Hendrix” mark. I concur in the determination that the permanent injunction should be vacated and remanded for clarification of precisely what conduct is permanently enjoined. In addition, I join the majority’s conclusion that the jury’s damages award was improperly decreased by the district court. Finally, but for different reasons as discussed below, I share the majority’s view that the district court’s ■award of attorney’s fees should be vacated and remanded.

Although there is much of the majority opinion with which I agree, I absolutely and positively disagree with the majority’s conclusion that a new trial is warranted on the issue of damages. In my view, the majority opinion on this point, like the district court decision, strays from the appropriate standard of review and essentially re-tries the…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EXPERIENCE HENDRIX L.L.C., a Nos. 11-35858 Washington Limited Liability 11-35872 Company, and AUTHENTIC HENDRIX L.L.C., a Washington D.C. No. Limited Liability Company, 2:09-CV-00285- Plaintiffs-Appellants/ TSZ Cross-Appellees,

ORDER AND

v. AMENDED

OPINION

HENDRIXLICENSING.COM LTD, a Nevada Corporation, DBA Hendrix Artwork, DBA Hendrixartwork.com; ANDREW PITSICALIS, an individual;

CHRISTINE RUTH FLAHERTY,

Defendants-Appellees/ Cross-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Thomas Zilly, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 7, 2013—Seattle, Washington

Filed January 29, 2014 Amended August 8, 2014 Before: David M. Ebel,* William A. Fletcher, and Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Judge Ebel; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Rawlinson

SUMMARY**

Trademark

The panel filed an order amending its previous opinion, and in the amended opinion the panel affirmed in part, reversed in part and vacated in part the district…