Posted on 08/11/2014 12:43:32 PM PDT by Citizen Zed
The great-grandsons of a woman who depicted "Aunt Jemima" want $2 billion from the companies whose pancake products bear her name.
The two men accuse Quaker Oats, Quaker's parent company PepsiCo and Pinnacle Foods of theft of royalties, fraud and racial discrimination.
Quaker Oats is the maker of Aunt Jemima pancake mixes and syrup. Pinnacle Foods currently makes Aunt Jemima frozen pancakes, waffles and French toast.
In their suit, D.W. Hunter and Larnell Evans say Quaker Oats representatives discovered their great-grandmother making pancakes at the New York State Fair in 1935. Anna S. Harrington portrayed the character in commercials and other public appearances for 15 years.
The suit says Quaker used Harrington's pancake recipes and trademarked her likeness as the character "Aunt Jemima" in 1937.
The great-grandsons say Quaker exploited Harrington with the intent of not paying royalties toward her estate after her death in 1955. They claim the companies conspired not to acknowledge Harrington's status as an employee of Quaker Oats by saying they could not find any employment records or images of her. But they say, Quaker had her image deposited with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.wgal.com ...
was there even such a thing as ‘royalties’ in the 50’s?
I won't comment because I still remember that Sambo's pancakes were really good. We had a restaurant about 3 blocks from home as the crow flies.
I do not disagree with you on that.
But, if Elvis Presley’s grand children can live off a dead man, these people should able to live off their dead great grandmother.
That is assuming that the old lady did not sign away the right to her likeness. But even if she did, Quaker will likely be writing a check.
No, but it offends the weight challenged big time!
I won’t comment because I haven’t read the court documents yet so I don’t know the legal merits.
Call me old-fashioned.
Do you think the attorneys will end up with most of the money?
Think of whip cracker, not soup cracker when you hear that racial slur being used.
1. Statute of Limitations
2. What does the contract say?
3. Seems this is like “betty crocker”
4. Where are the sanctions against the law firms with these “victory through embarrassment” suits?
|
Are they kidding? It’s a generic picture. All mammies look alike to me. To quote Hillary: “What difference does it make?”
Holder is still there
I can’t wait to see the weasel go.
And they just noticed today? Isn't there a concept in law where you have to act quickly to reconcile an offense rather than letting it fester in order to build up the bill? I know in patent law when we discovered another company infringing on our patents we had to notify them as soon as we found out or risked losing any penalties for infringement. Waiting nearly 60 years should be enough to get the case tossed out.
they have a serious statute of limitations problem.
The product name can be changed and they are sol.
Pay for doing commercials in the 50s isn’t comparable to later years. She probably got a pittance. Now, if they used her recipe and had a contract, the company should be OK, if not, there’s probably a good settlement in store for those young men and other relatives. Quaker Oats (and other publicly traded, consumer oriented companies) can’t take too much bad publicity.
Chuckling...reparations yeah.
And then there was Milton Sirotta, aged 9, who coined a word for the number 1 with a hundred zeros after it.
Screw 'em all!
Is this a case of someone claiming to be the "real" incarnation of what was a fictionalized character, and then demanding money as the "heir?"
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
