Jeff Jarrett and Impact Wrestling’s Parent Company Fail to Reach Settlement

Apr 15, 2019 - by James Walsh

Jeff Jarrett’s lawsuit against Anthem has failed to produce a settlement in talks, according to a new report. PWInsider has confirmed that the two sides were unable to come to a settlement during a telephone meeting on Friday that aimed to put the lawsuit behind the two parties.

The lawsuit claims that Anthem and Impact Wrestling violated state and federal trademark infringements in regard to Jarrett’s Global Wrestling Entertainment, as well as Jarrett’s property rights to his own name, photograph, and other likeness. Jarrett is arguing that Anthem prevented him from filing copyrights for the footage he taped for GWF’s Amped series and that Impact/Anthem deleted all of the master recordings. Anthem has admitted to deleting the footage in the “normal course of business” so that they could “free up storage space.”

Jarrett filed a response on Thursday to Anthem’s attempt to have the suit dismissed, stating, “This case presents a unique issue. In anticipation of a merger that ultimately failed, Defendants came into possession of the only copies of master recordings of the sixteen (16) one-hour episodes (the “Episodes”) of Global Force Wrestling (“GFW”) AMPED content (the “Masters”) at issue. There is and can be no dispute that Defendants (1) had the only copy of the Masters and (2) destroyed the Masters. Plaintiffs have alleged each one-hour episode in the Masters is worth up to $300,000.”

His lawyers also said that Anthem has never had exclusive property rights to his name or likeness, and that Anthem hasn’t attempted to use the trademark to his name in several years and have no intentions to. They state that the burden of proof for Anthem’s claim that they had an implied license to use the GFW Amped footage falls on the company, and that they have failed to prove it. The response stated, “The only reason Defendants ever came into possession of the Masters was in anticipation of a merger that ultimately failed. In addition, Plaintiffs have always exclusively owned the GFW marks. Plaintiffs’ Masters and trademarks are being used without payment or Plaintiffs’ involvement in a manner they never intended. Neither the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint nor the evidence submitted by Defendants permit or support an inference of an implied license. At best, such question is not one appropriate for a Rule 12 motion without the benefit of discovery and may even be a question for trial.”

Without a settlement, the case is set to make its way through the courts at this point.

Leave a Reply