Homepage The Firm
Practice Areas
Professionals
News/Publications


Contact
Disclaimers

      The Firm      Representative Work      Reported Cases      Careers      Contact Us

Representative Work

Business Transactions and Organizations

Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc., et al. v. JACO Environmental, Inc., et al.
George Clinton
Modell Associates, Inc.
Delilah Rene
DC3 Entertainment, LLC v. John Galt Entertainment, Inc., et al.
Chase Jarvis, et al. v. K2, Inc., et al.
Courtney Love Cobain, et al. v. David Grohl, et al.
James A. Hendrix v. Leo Branton, Jr., et al

Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc., et al. v. JACO Environmental, Inc., et al.
No. 04-1371 AHS (VBKx) (C.D. Cal. filed November 24, 2004)

Attorneys

O. Yale Lewis, Jr.
Stacia N. Lay
Kara C. Herschkowitz


Related Practices

Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution

Intellectual Property

Contracts, Unfair Competition and Other Business Disputes

Advertising, Marketing,
Publishing and Media


Recycling, Hazardous Waste Management and Carbon Offsets

Business Transactions and Organizations

JACO Environmental, Inc., of Everett, Washington, is dedicated to recycling household appliances in an environmentally-safe manner.  Working in partnership with major utility companies, JACO collects used freezers and refrigerators from consumers’ residences; separates and recycles 95% of the materials, including the metal, glass and plastic parts; and removes and disposes of PCBs and other hazardous chemicals in a safe and environmentally responsible manner, all of which is coupled with a commercially successful process for high-temperature incineration of polyurethane foam insulation contaminated with ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFC-11).

In November 2004, a competitor filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for declaratory judgment of invalidity and unenforceability of JACO’s patent on its incineration process, and alleging violations of state and federal false advertising law; state unfair competition law; intentional interference with prospective economic relations; and negligent interference with prospective economic relations.

At the outset, JACO successfully moved to dismiss both of the interference with prospective economic relations claims as well as the state unfair competition claim, and successfully negotiated a dismissal with prejudice of the claim for unenforceability and invalidity of the patent.  See Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc., et al. v. JACO Environmental, Inc., et al., No. 04-1371 AHS (VBKx) (C.D. Cal., June 24, 2005); Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc., et al. v. JACO Environmental, Inc., et al., No. 04-1371 AHS (VBKx) (C.D. Cal., October 7, 2005).

The false advertising claims involved an unsettled and developing area of the law in the Ninth Circuit regarding the interface between patent law and state and federal false advertising laws.  Specifically, because patent law protects a patent holder’s right to publicize its patent, JACO successfully argued that a patent holder could not be held liable for allegedly false statements in the marketplace about its patent unless the party challenging the statements proved that the statements were made in bad faith.

After four years of litigation, the Court entered judgment in favor of JACO on January 6, 2009, summarily dismissing the competitor’s two remaining claims.  See Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc., et al. v. JACO Environmental, Inc., et al., No. 04-1371 AHS (VBKx) (C.D. Cal., January 6, 2009). The competitor appealed the Court’s decision in favor of JACO to the Ninth Circuit but that Court affirmed the decision on May 4, 2010.  See Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc., et al. v. JACO Environmental Inc., et al., No. 09-55168 (9th Cir. May 4, 2010).

Hendricks & Lewis also represents JACO with respect to corporate and other general business matters.

George Clinton (various cases and matters)

Attorneys

O. Yale Lewis, Jr.
Stacia N. Lay
J. Bowman Neely

Related Practices

Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution

Intellectual Property

Contracts, Unfair Competition and Other Business Disputes

Arts, Entertainment and Sports

Business Transactions and Organizations

George Clinton, the legendary “godfather of funk,” is a celebrated songwriter, performer, producer, recording artist and visual artist. Hendricks & Lewis represented him and his entities in trials and/or appeals in California, Tennessee, Michigan and Florida, most of which concerned his music and recordings and the royalties derived from them. After winning a summary judgment in a copyright infringement claim against Capitol Records in Federal District Court in California in 2007, Hendricks & Lewis ultimately obtained a favorable negotiated settlement with that international record company.

In addition to litigation matters, Hendricks & Lewis has assisted Mr. Clinton in a broad array of copyright, trademark and contractual issues.


Modell Associates, Inc. (various cases and matters)

Attorneys

Katherine Hendricks


Related Practices

Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution

Intellectual Property

Contracts, Unfair Competition and Other Business Disputes

Advertising, Marketing,
Publishing and Media


Business Transactions and Organizations


For more than 20 years, Hendricks & Lewis has acted as general counsel to Modell Associates, Inc., a Colorado corporation and publisher of The Catalogues, including The Aspen Catalogue, The Vail-Beaver Creek Catalogue, The Santa Fe Catalogue, The Sun Valley Catalogue, The Jackson Hole Catalogue, and in addition, Aspen Home and Vail Home.

Hendricks & Lewis has provided general business advice to Modell Associates, including assisting with the start up and maintenance of the main corporate entity and with related limited liability companies. We have provided ongoing advice to ensure that the companies’ business needs are being met, such as recommending and creating standard business operating and transactional agreements, including office and employee manuals and work-for-hire agreements. We have also provided copyright and trademark advice, reviewed advertisements and media kits, and drafted licensing agreements, publishing agreements, and conveyances documents.

Hendricks & Lewis helped Modell obtain and protect federal and state registrations for its family of “CATALOGUE” marks and assisted the company in resolving a number of trademark and copyright disputes without the need for litigation. In addition, Kate Hendricks, a member of the Colorado bar, has litigated copyright and trademark infringement claims and contract issues for Modell Associates in federal district court for the District of Colorado, in Pitkin County District Court, and in Aspen, Colorado where Modell is located, as well as in other venues.


Delilah Rene (various cases and matters)

Attorneys

O. Yale Lewis, Jr.
Katherine Hendricks
Stacia N. Lay

Related Practices

Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution

Intellectual Property

Contracts, Unfair Competition and Other Business Disputes

Arts, Entertainment and Sports

Business Transactions and Organizations

Following our representation of Delilah Rene, host of the popular internationally-syndicated radio program Delilah®, in a contentious litigation that resulted in a favorable settlement, we have continued to represent Ms. Rene and her business ventures in a variety of matters.  Since 2005, Hendricks & Lewis has provided general business advice to Ms. Rene,  her companies, and non-profit organization, including drafting incorporating documents, office and employee manuals, work for hire, confidentiality and licensing agreements, film, publicity and privacy rights releases.  We have also represented Ms. Rene and her production company in contract negotiations that have resulted in exciting new business and media opportunities.  In addition, we have drafted and prosecuted federal trademark applications for Ms. Rene and her companies and provided advice on protecting and managing intellectual property, including her literary works and visual art. 


DC3 Entertainment, LLC v. John Galt Entertainment, Inc., et al.
No. C04-2374C (W.D. Wash. filed November 24, 2004)

Attorneys

O. Yale Lewis, Jr.
Stacia N. Lay

Related Practices

Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution

Intellectual Property

Contracts, Unfair Competition and Other Business Disputes

Arts, Entertainment and Sports

Business Transactions and Organizations

DC3 Entertainment, LLC (“DC3”), a Washington entertainment company, was established with a goal of radically changing the way business is conducted in the music industry. In 2003, a California company, John Galt Entertainment, Inc. (“JGE”), assigned to DC3 JGE’s rights in a production agreement with Brian Judah, a promising young songwriter and recording artist. DC3 then entered into a recording and production agreement with Mr. Judah and began recording, using the producer services of a JGE producer. Subsequently, the JGE principals became co-presidents of DC3 and agreed to convey their songwriting copyrights and publishing interests in the Judah recordings to DC3. In 2004, the relationship between DC3 and the JGE principals ended and the JGE principals threatened, in part, to block DC3’s completion of the Judah album.

In November 2004, on behalf of DC3, Hendricks & Lewis filed a complaint in federal court in Seattle against JGE and its principals for a declaratory judgment, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty and injunctive relief. The defendants, in turn, asserted counterclaims and third-party claims for, among other things, breach of contract, an accounting and establishment of constructive trust for alleged royalties due on the Judah album, as well as discrimination and harassment on the basis of religion and sex, retaliation and wrongful termination.

Soon thereafter, Hendricks & Lewis obtained a preliminary injunction for DC3 that prohibited the defendants from transferring their copyright and publishing interests to third parties, as well as a declaratory judgment allowing DC3 to re-record the Brian Judah album without the producer services of JGE. Following an extensive motion practice that included two favorable partial summary judgment decisions and a two-week jury trial, DC3 received a favorable verdict.

See DC3 Entertainment, LLC v. John Galt Entertainment, Inc., No. C04-2374C, 2007 WL 30874 (W.D. Wash., Jan 4, 2007); DC3 Entertainment, LLC v. John Galt Entertainment, Inc., 412 F. Supp. 2d 1125 (W.D. Wash. 2006); DC3 Entertainment, LLC v. John Galt Entertainment, Inc., No. C04-2374C (W.D. Wash., Feb. 2, 2006); DC3 Entertainment, LLC v. John Galt Entertainment, Inc., No. C04-2374C (W.D. Wash., Dec. 6, 2005); DC3 Entertainment, LLC v. John Galt Entertainment, Inc., No. C04-2374C (W.D. Wash., Sept. 27, 2005).

Hendricks & Lewis also obtained the dismissal of a related contract case filed by JGE against Brian Judah in state court in California; conducted discovery that led to a favorable settlement in another case against DC3 and its principals for, among other things, fraud and breach of contract; and assisted DC3 in the creation of various business entities and related corporate transactions and the selection, acquisition, defense and/or transfer of trademarks and domain names.


Chase Jarvis, et al. v. K2, Inc., et al.
486 F.3d 526 (9th Cir. 2007)

Attorneys

Katherine Hendricks
J. Bowman Neely

Related Practices

Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution

Intellectual Property

Contracts, Unfair Competition and Other Business Disputes

Advertising, Marketing,
Publishing and Media


Arts, Entertainment and Sports

Business Transactions and Organizations

Chase Jarvis is an accomplished professional photographer who specializes in outdoor sports images. Over several years, he created more than 4,000 slides for K2, a seller of outdoor sporting goods such as skis, snowboards, skates and bikes. Uses of the images embodied in the slides were governed by a series of licenses. K2 lost significant numbers of Jarvis slides, failed to provide contractually required photo credits, and miscredited one image to another photographer. Jarvis’ images were used by K2 in ways not permitted by the licenses and after the applicable licenses expired, and K2 improperly provided images to third parties who then used the images.

On Jarvis’ behalf, Hendricks & Lewis filed an action against K2 for copyright infringement, breach of contract, conversion and violation of the Lanham Act. Hendricks & Lewis obtained a preliminary injunction precluding further use of the Jarvis images, engaged in discovery and pretrial motion practice, obtaining summary judgment on most of the liability issues. Hendricks & Lewis tried the case to the Court in March 2005. The Court found that K2 had lost 396 slides, failed to give credit in 105 instances, miscredited one image and entered comprehensive findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Although the court ruled in Jarvis’ favor in many respects and awarded him damages, Jarvis took issue with certain of the court’s rulings on damages and also as to the applicability of the collective works privilege under 17 U.S.C. § 201(c). On Jarvis’ behalf Hendricks & Lewis filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, designated the record on appeal and briefed the issues and argued the appeal. In addition, Hendricks & Lewis coordinated with photography organizations that were interested in the Section 201(c) issues and wished to file amicus curie briefs.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling as to Section 201(c) and remanded for determinations of willfulness, actual and statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.  On Jarvis’ behalf, Hendricks & Lewis fully briefed the issues on remand and as raised by the district court.


Courtney Love Cobain, et al. v.
David Grohl, et al.

No. 01-2-13059-5SEA (Wash. Superior Court, King County, filed May 9, 2001)

Attorneys

O. Yale Lewis, Jr.
Katherine Hendricks

Related Practices

Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution

Intellectual Property

Contracts, Unfair Competition and Other Business Disputes

Privacy, Publicity, Life Story Rights and Defamation

Arts, Entertainment and Sports

Business Transactions and Organizations

Courtney Love is the widow of Kurt Cobain, a celebrated songwriter, performer, recording artist and visual artist.  Frances Bean Cobain is their daughter. In 2001, Ms. Love—on behalf of herself, Frances Bean Cobain and a California entity that had been established to receive payment for the benefit of Ms. Love and Frances Bean Cobain from revenues generated by the assets of the Kurt Cobain legacy—filed suit in state court in Seattle, Washington against (a) the surviving Nirvana band members Krist Novoselic and David Grohl; (b) an LLC of which Ms. Love and Messrs. Grohl and Novoselic were members and managers; and (c) Universal Music Group, Inc., for declaratory judgment, breach of fiduciary duty, oppression of minority shareholder, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, rescission, breach of contract, judicial dissolution and preliminary injunction.

Shortly after the complaint was filed by Hendricks & Lewis, Ms. Love obtained a preliminary injunction against all of the defendants that, among other things, prohibited them from releasing a previously-unreleased song written by Kurt Cobain entitled “You Know You’re Right.” Subsequently, Hendricks & Lewis successfully resisted the defendants’ demand that Ms. Love undergo a psychiatric examination pursuant to the LLC agreement, and ultimately obtained a negotiated settlement that secured for Ms. Love and Frances Bean Cobain substantial and long-lasting financial and other benefits including: (a) a satisfactory restructuring of the Nirvana LLC; (b) ultimate control of the Cobain legacy, life story and movie rights; and (c) the possibility for significantly-enhanced, long-term income streams.

In addition, Hendricks & Lewis assisted in the negotiation and documentation of an agreement with Geffen Records to release a “Greatest Hits” album in 2002, a publishing agreement with Riverhead Press for the “Cobain Journals,” and the renegotiation of a music publishing agreement with EMI Records.


James A. Hendrix v. Leo Branton,
Jr., et al.

No. C93-537Z (W.D. Wash. filed April 16, 1993)

Attorneys

O. Yale Lewis, Jr.
Katherine Hendricks

Related Practices

Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution

Intellectual Property

Contracts, Unfair Competition and Other Business Disputes

Arts, Entertainment and Sports

Business Transactions and Organizations

The Hendrix litigation pitted Jimi Hendrix’s father, Al Hendrix, in a two-year struggle against a large and ever-changing cast of lawyers, accountants, professional managers, music executives and various national, international, and offshore corporations, partnerships and trusts. The objective was control of the Hendrix legacy, which Al Hendrix had allegedly sold in 1974 for an income stream of $50,000 a year. As a result of Hendricks & Lewis’s six-month investigation and legal assessment, and in response to recent news reports that MCA was acquiring the “Hendrix catalogue” from entities that claimed to own the Hendrix legacy pursuant to various agreements Al Hendrix allegedly signed in 1974 and thereafter, Hendricks & Lewis filed on behalf of Al Hendrix a suit in federal court in Seattle, Washington in the Spring of 1993, claiming an accounting, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, legal malpractice, restitution based upon rescission of contract, securities law violations, violation of RICO, conspiracy to defraud, infringement of copyrights, unfair competition, conversion, infringement of rights of publicity and declaratory judgments.

After two years of intense and extensive international and multi-faceted discovery and motion practice that included multiple injunctions, discovery orders and interim appeals resolved by the Ninth Circuit, the parties entered into a mediated settlement. That settlement, which was read into the court record on May 2, 1995, conveyed to Al Hendrix “all rights, claims and interests in and to any and all parts of the properties described generally as the Jimi Hendrix legacy. These conveyances will include intellectual properties, physical properties, and all copies, reproductions, intangible rights and so forth associated with the Jimi Hendrix legacy.”


(206) 624-1933 | Email © 2007 – 2016 Hendricks & Lewis. All rights reserved.