The 1999 district court opinion is by Judge Gregory M. Sleet about a partnership in bankruptcy. The Court has to determine whether certain payments were preferential and to be reclaimed by the company’s debtors. Here we see another unnecessary reference to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, again likening them to Power Rangers and this time also to Barney.
In re: COLLEGEVILLE/IMAGINEERING, L.P., Debtor. COLLEGEVILLE/IMAGINEERING, L.P., Plaintiff, v. L.J. LIFF AND ASSOCIATES, LIMITED, Defendant. COLLEGEVILLE/IMAGINEERING, L.P., Plaintiff, v. LAWRENCE J. LIFF, Defendant.
Chapter 11, Civil Action No. 97-413-GMS and Civil Action No. 97-414-GMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23622
October 5, 1999, Decided
In explaining how the company’s business went bad:
this new Partnership was fairly successful. Like its predecessor and namesake, the Partnership would build up a large inventory of non-licensed costumes (e.g., ghosts, goblins, witches, skeletons, etc.) early in the year and, then, secure the crucial licenses for the more popular characters (such as the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or Barney) a few months before Halloween. As a result, the Partnership enjoyed a competitive advantage over other costume manufacturers since stores typically buy all of their Halloween products from one vendor. Because of its historical success in this area, the Partnership was able to fund its activities by borrowing heavily from its lender, Meridian Bank, during the year and then paying off its line of credit with the proceeds from its Halloween sales after the season had ended. For the most part, the Partnership’s loans were unsecured.
However, in the Summer of 1994, the Partnership learned that it would not able to obtain a license for the most popular characters of the season—the “Power Rangers.” Consequently, its sales suffered terribly and, by the end of the year, the Partnership had incurred a $10 to $12 million shortfall and was thus in default with respect to its obligations to Meridian.
Previous NinjaLaw cases about Ninja Turtles:
– First mention of TMNT in Federal Courts
Sun Dun v Coca Cola – August 15, 1991
– Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles again – Retromutagen Ooze
Monarch v. Ritam – June 12, 1992
– Ninja Turtles and Hollywood’s Horizontal Conspiracy
El Cajon v. AMC – October 23, 1992
– First mention of Ninja Turtles in F.Ct. where it’s actually about them
Mirage Studios v. Weng et.al. – April 29, 1994
– Burger King Kids Club with Mutant Ninja Turtles – multi-ethnic path to Glee and Celebrity Apprentice
CK Company v. Burger King – September 29, 1994
– Ninja Turtles again, this time with FASA’s BattleTech, ExoSquad, RoboTech and Playmates
Fasa v. Playmates – June 19, 1995
(WITH POWER RANGERS)
– Spam vs Spa’am with Splinter from TMNT and Pumbaa from Lion King
Hormel Foods v. Jim Henson Productions – September 22, 1995
– Ring Pops not utilitarian so trademark protects after patent expired
Topps Company v. Verburg – December 12, 1996
– Ninja Turtles as euphemism for Prison Response Team
Clark v. Westchester County – April 30, 1998
– Statue of a Ninja Turtle – heroin in it
Reyes v. Miller – June 23, 1999