Burlesque Law News, Part I: Pussycat Dolls Tribute Acts Take Copyright and Trademark Dispute to Court

In burlesque-law news, a Seattle woman, Kristen Colliander, has sued her former employer, Goldberg Entertainment Inc., for whom she claims she created and developed “The Angels: A Pussycat Dolls Tribute.” (For those of you unfamiliar with mid-2000s pop-dance music, the Pussycat Dolls, per Wikipedia, are “an American pop girl group and dance ensemble founded by choreographer Robin Antin in 1995 as a burlesque troupe.”)

Colliander and Goldberg parted ways and are now competitors. Goldberg has continued to use the name “The Angels” for its PCD tribute act. Colliander, nonplussed, alleges that she holds a common-law trademark in the word “Angels” for the show, and that Goldberg is infringing not only upon that trademark, but upon her copyright in various promotional materials and on the “unique pseudonyms, images and likeness [sic]” allegedly created by Colliander for “The Angels.” She also alleges Lanham Act violations and violation of Washington’s right of publicity statute. We’ve made Colliander’s complaint available here. (Read more about the case at Seattle Trademark Lawyer and at Property, intangible.)

I’ve never looked into legal issues surrounding tribute acts, but asserting one’s intellectual property rights in material created in the process of performing another group’s songs while dressed up like that group is courageous, to say the least. However, there are indeed some distinct similarities in the two groups’ promotional material that might support Colliander’s allegations.

Colliander’s current PCD tribute group, the “Pussycat Angels,” is featured here on the website of Titan Entertainment. Goldberg Entertainment’s website advertises the Colliander-less “Angels” here.

A glance at both pages (see above) reveals that the “Pussycat Angels” and “Angels” logos are basically identical. The complaint alleges only common-law copyright infringement in what it describes as “Plaintiff’s ‘Angels’ common-law trademark” (see Complaint, p. 7.). However, the complaint doesn’t distinguish between a mark in the common word “Angels” and the more distinctive “Angels” logo used by both acts. Assuming Colliander created the “Angels” logo, a comparison of the logos at the very least suggests something is awry. (Additional trademark or unfair competition analysis would require information not provided in the complaint, such as whether Colliander has any evidence supporting a finding of a likelihood of confusion, or actual confusion, between the two groups due to the similarity of the marks.)

Additionally, Goldberg’s “Angels” are advertised as “[o]ne part dance. One part vocal chops. Mix well with personality plus, sexy costumes, and a band that rocks the house.” Colliander’s “Pussycat Angels” are advertised as, you guessed it, “[o]ne part dance. One part vocal chops. Mix well with personality plus, sexy costumes, and a band that rocks the house.”

If Colliander wrote the advertising copy, her copyright infringement claims might well survive a motion to dismiss. I would expect Goldberg Entertainment’s defense to focus on the extent to which there is evidence that, because Colliander was a Goldberg employee, her efforts were work for hire and therefore the property of Goldberg, not Colliander.

We’ll be bringing you more burlesque law news shortly. No, I am not kidding.