Museum Boutique Intercontinental, Ltd. v. Picasso

886 F.Supp. 1155 (1995)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Pablo Picasso's actual works of art were divided among his heirs. However, the reproduction rights in the works remained in the Picasso Estate, or Succession Picasso, as the joint property of the heirs. Under French law, this joint property is known as the indivision successorale ('indivision'), and the joint ownership of the reproduction rights continues in effect until the heirs individually opt out or become subject, either through agreement among themselves or court decision, to a division, or partage, of the property. In 1976, the heirs and the Societe de la Propriete Artistique et des Dessins et Modeles ('SPADEM') entered into an agreement \which granted SPADEM the right to administer, manage and exploit the Picasso name, image, and likeness in connection with reproductions of Picasso artwork. In 1980, P allegedly acquired exclusive licenses to reproduce certain Picasso paintings and create derivative works incorporating these images. In 1993, P brought this suit against Picasso (Ds). P claims that Ds have infringed P's exclusive rights in the Picasso works and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. P alleges intentional interference with contractual relations with P's Japanese manufacturers and distributors among other counts. P claims that Ds had actual knowledge of its agreements and that Ds falsely advised the Japanese companies that P had no right to license or sell derivative works of art in order to induce a breach of the licensing agreements. Mitsukoshi and INFAS lost faith in P and sought continuous reassurance from P. Mitsukoshi was forced to fly two million dollars of its prototypes to New York for a product review. P spent many working hours trying to assure Mitsukoshi and INFAS that it had the rights to license these goods and in contact with Claude Picasso and SPADEM to make sure that they would not sue P's agents and licensees. Claude Picasso (D) also sought the termination of the Mitsukoshi and INFAS contracts as part of the Global License Agreement that he was negotiating with P. P alleges that Paloma and Claude's actions drove P to seek the Global Licensing Agreement and subsequently caused P to terminate its contracts with Mitsukoshi and INFAS. Ds motioned for summary judgment.