The attorneys for WWE and Fanatics (the law firm of Holland and Knight) filed its Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Cody Runnels (we know him as Cody Rhodes), WWE and Fanatics for alleged trademark infringement among other claims.
WWE and Fanatics MTD in Ame… by MMA Payout
The plaintiff, Wesley Eisold, owned the trademark American Nightmare for his band and also sold apparel associated with the band. In When the WWE superstar sought to trademark his ring nickname, American Nightmare, he was met with a Wesley Eisold’s attempt to block the registration of the WWE’s superstar’s application because the he had priority of the name.
Prior to the dispute growing, the parties settled their grievances and Rhodes was allowed to utilize the name in exchange for $30,000 and the promise not to utilize it in certain instances.
In 2022, Plaintiff believed that Rhodes and the WWE breached the contract he had with them when the company launched new apparel for Rhodes which featured more of the skull-look without the Rhodes’ name, likeness or a pro wrestling logo) which Eisold believed was a breach of contract he entered into with Rhodes and WWE.
One of the exhibit’s in the Eisold lawsuit which he believes breached the contract which settled their original trademark claim.
The attorney for WWE and Fanatics responded to the lawsuit by filing a Motion to Dismiss the case. Their attorneys claim that the lawsuit lacks depth by describing plaintiff “[f]ormaically recites the claims’ required elements.” Essentially a critique of the pleading by Eisold’s attorneys in describing the elements of breach and how the breach came about. They also claim that Rhodes and WWE did not violate the Agreement with Eisold because the new clothing did not violate the terms of the agreement. In addition, WWE and Fanatics claim that the lawsuit (as filed with the court) lacks a causal connection.
Payout Perspective:
Eisold’s attorney will get a change to respond to his Motion to Dismiss before it is heard on January 24, 2025. The Motion argues that Rhodes and WWE did not breach the original settlement agreement because the alleged breach (the new apparel) did not violate the terms of their agreement. As a result, the defendants argue that Eisold has not explained how WWE and Rhodes (Fanatics is being sued because it is WWE’s vendor) violated the terms of the agreement. Thus, the argument seems to go that since there was no breach and nothing has been explained as to how it was breached, one must assume that no breach occurred.
Leave a Reply