Apple Corps Ltd. v. International Collectors Society
15 F. Supp. 2d 456, 1998 WL 345078, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9747 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party is liable for civil contempt if a valid court order existed, the defendant had knowledge of the order, and the defendant disobeyed it, which must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Attorneys and their investigators may ethically use limited deception regarding identity or purpose for evidence-gathering to detect ongoing wrongdoing, provided such deception is necessary and the contacted individuals are not part of the opposing party's litigation control group, without violating rules against deceit or communication with represented parties.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Apple Corps Limited owns rights to The Beatles' name/likeness; MPL Communications, Inc. owns rights to Paul McCartney's name/likeness; Yoko Ono Lennon (as Executrix for John Lennon's Estate) owns rights to John Lennon's name/likeness/trademarks; Subafilms, Ltd. owns copyright to 'Yellow Submarine' images; and Yoko Ono Lennon owns rights to her own name/likeness.
- Defendant International Collectors Society (ICS) markets and sells postage stamps and other products, with John Van Emden, Scott L. Tilson, and Jeffrey B. Franz as officers.
- The parties entered into a Consent Order in June 1997, which permanently enjoined ICS from distributing or selling products bearing the name/likeness of The Beatles or John Lennon, with exceptions for certain 'Lennon Stamps' sold under a 'Lennon License' and specific 'Sell-Off Stamps' sold only to members of ICS's 'Beatles/Lennon Club.'
- The Lennon License required ICS to submit all promotional material incorporating Lennon trademarks for approval by the Lennon Estate, with disapproval if not approved within seven days.
- ICS distributed '99 facts booklets' (Lennon Fact Book and Lennon/Marx Fact Book) free with stamp purchases, featuring John Lennon's name/likeness, containing statements objectionable to Yoko Ono Lennon, and were never submitted for approval or were deemed disapproved.
- ICS's counsel initially admitted distributing the Lennon Fact Book inadvertently and assured the Lennon Estate's counsel, Dorothy Weber, that distribution would cease and materials would be submitted for approval; however, ICS continued to distribute these unapproved booklets.
- Lennon Estate's counsel and private investigators, posing as ordinary consumers, called ICS and were able to purchase 'Sell-Off Stamps' despite not being members of the Beatles/Lennon Club, in direct violation of the Consent Order.
- Based on these continued breaches, the Lennon Estate terminated the Lennon License, which was a non-curable breach under the license terms for distributing unapproved materials.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Apple Corps Limited, MPL Communications, Inc., Yoko Ono Lennon, Subafilms, Ltd., and Yoko Ono Lennon (collectively 'Plaintiffs') commenced an action against Defendants International Collectors Society, John E. Van Emden, Scott L. Tilson, Jeffrey B. Franz, and Howard E. Friedman (collectively 'Defendants') in the District Court for the District of New Jersey in April 1996, alleging unlawful trading off goodwill and unauthorized sales of Beatles-related stamps, seeking money damages and a permanent injunction.
- In October 1996, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.
- On November 6, 1996, the District Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order.
- On November 8, 1996, Plaintiffs presented evidence of continued sales and requested reconsideration of the TRO denial.
- On November 14, 1996, the parties entered into a Consent Order, which preliminarily enjoined Defendants from marketing or distributing the disputed products.
- In June 1997, the parties agreed to resolve the case via a new Consent Order, which the District Court entered on June 19, 1997.
- On or about September 24, 1997, Plaintiffs filed a motion for civil contempt to enforce paragraph O of the Consent Order.
- Defendants subsequently filed a cross-motion to rescind the Consent Order pursuant to Rule 60(b) and a separate motion seeking sanctions against Plaintiffs' counsel.
- The District Court heard four days of testimony and argument on all three motions on November 3, 1997, November 24, 1997, January 13, 1998, and April 7, 1998.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1) Are Defendants in civil contempt for violating a Consent Order by distributing unapproved promotional materials featuring John Lennon and selling restricted 'Sell-Off Stamps' to non-club members? 2) Does Plaintiffs' counsel engage in unethical conduct by using undercover investigators who misrepresent their identity and purpose to detect these violations, thus warranting sanctions or dissolution of the Consent Order?
Opinions:
Majority - Greenaway, District Judge
Yes, Defendants are in civil contempt for violating the Consent Order, and no, Plaintiffs' counsel and investigators did not engage in unethical conduct warranting sanctions or dissolution of the Consent Order. The court found that a valid Consent Order existed, Defendants had knowledge of it, and they disobeyed its provisions by clear and convincing evidence. Defendants violated Paragraph A of the Consent Order by distributing the Lennon Fact Book and Lennon/Marx Fact Book, which were determined to be 'products' featuring John Lennon's name and likeness. The court rejected Defendants' argument that 'products' referred only to items sold, clarifying that the term meant 'something produced' and the Consent Order explicitly prohibited 'distributing' products. Furthermore, these booklets were 'promotional material' incorporating 'Licensor’s Trademarks' (Lennon and John Lennon), and their distribution without approval violated the Lennon License, thus breaching Paragraph D of the Consent Order. Defendants also violated Paragraph E by selling 'Sell-Off Stamps' to non-members of the Beatles/Lennon Club, as evidenced by Plaintiffs' investigators successfully purchasing them despite not being club members. The court rejected the 'substantial compliance' defense, citing Paragraph O of the Consent Order, which stipulated remedies for a breach of 'any provision,' and noted that the evidence did not support substantial compliance. The court denied Defendants' motion to dissolve the Consent Order under Rule 60(b), stating that a settlement agreement breach does not constitute 'extraordinary circumstances' for relief and, in any event, found no breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by the Lennon Estate (e.g., the IGPC payment was a negotiated business deal, approval was reasonably withheld, and termination was justified). Finally, the court denied Defendants' motion for sanctions against Plaintiffs' counsel, ruling that the use of undercover investigators did not violate New Jersey's Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC). Specifically, RPC 4.2 (communication with represented parties) did not apply because ICS's sales representatives were not part of the 'litigation control group.' RPC 8.4(c) (deceitful conduct) did not apply to misrepresentations 'solely as to identity or purpose and solely for evidence-gathering purposes' to detect ongoing wrongdoing, as such limited deception is accepted in similar contexts (e.g., criminal cases, discrimination testing) where violations are hard to discover otherwise. RPC 4.3 (dealing with unrepresented parties) was inapplicable because counsel and investigators were not acting in a lawyerly capacity while conducting ordinary business transactions to test compliance.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the ethical boundaries for attorneys using undercover investigations in civil litigation to enforce court orders or contractual agreements. It establishes that limited deception regarding identity or purpose by lawyers or their agents is permissible for evidence-gathering, particularly when detecting ongoing violations by low-level employees not involved in legal strategy. This ruling prevents corporations from shielding their day-to-day misconduct from investigation through overly broad interpretations of ethics rules and reinforces the enforceability of consent orders, even against claims of 'substantial compliance' when the order explicitly outlines remedies for 'any breach.' The decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to consent decrees and the courts' power to ensure their integrity.
