8/19/2023 0 Comments Carol baskinExotic would also need to be careful not to cross the line by making any false or misleading factual statements about Baskin’s non-profit, lest he subject himself to a potential lawsuit for defamation and/or false advertising. But he would still need to be careful not to mislead or confuse others into believing he was somehow affiliated with or sponsored by Baskin’s non-profit. This means Exotic could have used the mark to criticize and express his opinions about Baskin and her non-profit on social media, the internet, and elsewhere. If done correctly, Exotic’s use of the mark would be considered fair use so long as his references to it were not misleading or unjustified. So, what could Joe Exotic have done differently? Although intentionally misleading the public by adopting another’s trademark is unlawful, Exotic could have lawfully used the BIG CAT RESCUE mark to refer to Baskin’s non-profit, the mark’s true owner. Trademark rights are serious and must be respected and infringing them can have significant legal and financial consequences. The most obvious among them: it is neither wise nor advantageous to target personal or business rivals by misusing their trademarks. But other lessons can be gleaned from these events. The series portrays the trademark lawsuit and resulting monetary judgment as the precipitating event that ruins Exotic financially, causing him to spiral out of control. ![]() The judgment concluded that Exotic and his companies “infringed upon Plaintiff’s trademark rights and engaged in false designation of origin and unfair competition,” awarded Baskin’s non-profit $953,000 ($653,000 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in attorney fees and costs), and permanently enjoined Exotic and his companies from ever again using the BIG CAT RESCUE trademark or any confusingly similar mark. Soon thereafter, Exotic agreed to enter into a consent judgment with the non-profit. The parties litigated the trademark case for two years until the judge granted summary judgment in favor of Baskin’s non-profit. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Exotic allegedly boasted on Facebook that he purposefully chose this name to “ruin” the goodwill and reputation of Baskin’s non-profit. ![]() Exotic Memorial Animal Foundation), adopted and began using the nearly identical name “Big Cat Rescue Entertainment.” According to the subsequent lawsuit filed in the U.S. To apparently retaliate against Baskin for organizing protests and speaking out against Exotic and his operations for years, Exotic, through his corporation (G.W. Since 2005, Baskin’s non-profit, Big Cat Rescue Corp., has owned a federally registered trademark for BIG CAT RESCUE and design, Registration No. More pertinent to the rising plot, however, is the 2011 trademark lawsuit Carol Baskin filed against Joe Exotic that began a series of negative events that ultimately lead to Exotic’s tragic undoing. ![]() The show centers on an escalating feud between the “Tiger King” Joe Maldonado-Passage, aka Joe Exotic, an eccentric big-cat breeder and owner of a private exotic animal park in Oklahoma, and Carol Baskin, the owner of a non-profit animal sanctuary in Florida.įor most viewers, the salacious murder-for-hire plot for which Joe Exotic is eventually prosecuted is the most interesting legal aspect of the show. The series explores the peculiar world of private, big-cat zoos and the strange characters that run them. Netflix’s documentary series “Tiger King” is currently the number one show on the streaming service and one of the most talked about shows in media.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |