Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Southern District of Florida

Federal Judiciary

: Southern District of Florida

How the ball bounces

Judge Marra just dealt a blow to the successor to the investors in the failed restaurant and memorabilia emporium, D. Wade?s Place, something I had no idea had ever existed. It seems, according to the order dismissing the complaint, that there is no legal basis for their contention that Dwyane (that?s how that?s apparently spelled) was monopolizing memorabilia by failing to perform on a contract that gave the investors

the right to use his name, fame, nickname, initials, autograph, voice, video or film portrayals, facsimile or original signature, photograph, likeness, and image or facsimile image without Wade?s consent to create personalized memorabilia featuring Wade which could be sold at the restaurants.

I know, I know. You?ve just experienced a certain loss of innocence. Basketball?s all just about making money. Let?s move on.

Plaintiff alleges that the relevant product market in this case is Dwyane Wade personalized sports memorabilia. Plaintiff contends that ?[t]here is no substitute for Wade-personalized sports memorabilia (?Wade Memorabilia?), especially in southern Florida, where the Miami Heat plays."

Quoting heavily from a series of antitrust decisions, Judge Marra observed, and I?m paraphrasing here, that things that are cool?e.g., a Yale education, the make-up from Cats, tickets to Phantom, Pepsi, NBC Must See TV?do not constitute their own relevant markets just because they?re cool.

Bilzen Sumberg &c. and the Tampa outpost of DLA Piper filed the motion.

(Having come to the end of this post, I have to confess that I?m a little surprised D.O.M. doesn?t have Blog tags for the Heat or Wade.)

Full post as published by Southern District of Florida on March 30, 2010 (boomark / email).