Larry Bird feels that he should be the only one to profit from the use of his name, and I suppose it's tough to argue that point. But what about when the name is simply being used to accurately describe his former place of residence? That, my friends, is why God created lawyers, and Larry has retained the services of one to sue the pants off a couple who is using Larry's name for precisely that descriptive purpose.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, claims Georgianna Lincoln and Christopher Cooke did not have permission to use the NBA Hall of Famer's name with the property and are profiting off his trademark by stating the home belonged to him.
"The commercialization of Larry Bird's name in association with this former property is wholly and completely unauthorized and is blatantly being done for the sole purpose of profiting illegally from Larry Bird's name," the lawsuit states.
The property that is being described here is a resort called "Legend of French Lick," which says on the front page of its website that it's "the former home of Larry Bird." (Uh, Larry? It was your former home.) It doesn't sound like Bird has much of a case here, as long as the resort owners stick to the facts in representing their property. But then again, Larry simply might not want his name associated with something that he has no involvement in, even if the representation is factually accurate.
ADVERTISEMENT
_thumbnail.jpg "NASCAR Cowboy Hats")
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. Please tell me how that is any different from selling sports memorabilia? If I go to a sports fair and try to sell you a jersey once worn by my favorite ballplayer, or a baseball he hit, it's legal. But a realtor tries to sell a house in the same manner, Larry wants a piece? How much more money does this guy need?
Posted at 4:41PM on May 13th 2008 by Tipcpup
2. A jersey he wore or a basketball he touched is part of the game he played. The NBA covers this sort of thing same with MLB or NFL...not much any athlete can do about it. Normally contracts and league rules cover that. However a persons home is not covered under any league rules on contract signed by a player and a team. If the actual value of the home is less than when you sell it using Larry Birds name then that is profiting off him and illegally using his name. Now if it comes up in conversation with someone that Larry Bird use to live there then fine but if they are advertising it publically that way and using it to gain a profitable advantage thats not ok. I wouldnt be suprised if he wins this honestly.
Posted at 5:51PM on May 13th 2008 by Jay
3. what's really stupid about all this is that someone has ANY interest in an athlete's former home...like owning it or visiting it somehow makes them more 'special?" What do they expect now they can drain an outside shot because the slept in the room Larry used to sleep in? or went on the toilet he used??? Who gives a crap, people should get their OWN lives instead of trying to feel special by association to someone else's, it's pathetic
Posted at 7:01PM on May 13th 2008 by Michael gifford
4. Larry's right. He does have a legal right to sue because he does own the trademark.
However, the real question is whether he should sue. Its pretty common in real estate that people always write articles about people selling their homes and mentioning famous people who lived there.
In this context, Larry should not sue. Its not good PR.
Posted at 12:52PM on May 14th 2008 by LA Lawyer
5. They should have said "Former Boston Celtic Hall of Fame player with name that rhymes with 'Hairy Turd'"
Posted at 8:07PM on May 18th 2008 by andyfluker