Duke Ellington's Family Sues Over Cognac

by Deidre Woollard (RSS feed)
Aug 6th 2009 at 10:01PM

Way back in 2006 we mentioned that a cognac using Duke Ellington's name was going to be launched but now three years later his family has filed a federal lawsuit in New York. The family of the music legend says that Harbrew Imports used the name "Duke Ellington XO Cognac" without getting proper permission to use Duke's name and signature on their product. The Ellington estate says that a negotiation was attempted but never completed and they want all profits earned on the $150-per-bottle liquor.

This case reminds me a little bit of the case of Electric Hendrix vodka, a vodka bearing the likeness of Jimi Hendrix. Earlier this year, a federal judge in Seattle ordered the makers of the vodka to pay $3.2 million in damages for trademark infringement. In that case the vodka was pulled from the shelves but in this case it seems like the cognac is already nearly impossible to find.

Tags: cognac, duke ellington, DukeEllington, lawsuit

Filed under: Spirits, Crimes and Misdemeanors

Source

Subscribe to these comments

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Bossidy Aug 9th 2009 1:39PM

Hey Steve.... You should be the one to get off your fat lazy ass and get a real life.... and a real job. The Duke Family has EVERY right to get permission for something like this.... but a simple mind, like yourself, really can't understand business deals.... You're a major LOOOSER Steve.. Go back to sleep...maybe you won't wake up.

kanicello Aug 9th 2009 1:47PM

hey, steve! do you even know these people that you've decided are lazy? One is the wife of a relatively well-known opera star who is now retired, worked his butt off for YEARS both performing and teaching. Part of the job of receiving a legacy is protecting family assets. Without a doubt, the name "Duke Ellington" IS an asset, and what gives anyone else the right to steal that property from someone else?

Robert L. Gonzales Aug 9th 2009 1:56PM

Lsteve ----when you die your estate belongs to your beneficiary. In this case the estate obviously belongs to the beneficiaries and noone else should profit from it just like noone but yours should profit off yours.

MARY Aug 9th 2009 1:58PM

'HEYYYYYY JUST LEAVE *STEVE ALONE.,

kevin Aug 9th 2009 2:21PM

so these folks think they deserve all profits from these congac cause it had the name of some dead guy on it .so thier say the stuff sold just on name alone . it's sale had nothing to do with flavor ,aroma ,taste or quality.all have to say is the money must be running low & they lose & no even bother using the name of these dead nobody .

robin Aug 10th 2009 6:43AM

I don't doubt that it is possible the Ellington family should not deserve some royalties from the selling of the duke ellingtion congac. But the problem I see in this case compared to the other case of Hendrix is that congac was around before Duke Ellington first of all. and second of all The company did not use Duke Ellington legal name on the liquor. Duke was his nick name, his real name was Edward also you can not copyright a name. Whereas with the Hendrix issue they actually created a bottle that looked like Jimmy Hendrix. and Jimmy had establish his name and his look as a trademark which Duke never did. So I really don't think they will win this one.

sdingus Aug 10th 2009 8:10AM

they not only used his name it was a copy of his signature ok its just wrong

SweetPea Aug 10th 2009 8:31AM

If these companies were smart they would add in the contract that if said person dies the company retains sole rights and that would eliminate being sued by beneficiaries. But lets face it, there will always be people that will fight for the last penny and you would too if it was a member of your family and you were being cut out of the profits. On the other hand at $150.00 a bottle, only the weathly could afford that price.

John Aug 10th 2009 8:17AM

Um, Sassytxn12, What do you know about Duke Ellington's offspring? Is your comment resultant from legitimate reporting or just the railings of an inbred with a bad attitude? Duke Ellington was a national treasure. He was the most prolific songwriter in the history of American music. His descendants have every right to protect the name. Legally, the name represents a specific individual and is subject to litigation if the name is violated outside of a contract. Go back under your rock.

Gabby Parsons Aug 10th 2009 8:26AM

Sassy...

Calling one of the greatest musicians in the world and his children " trash" just shows you to be a racist, pure and simply. You probably also believe President Obama was born in Kenya.

windmanbwa Aug 10th 2009 6:19PM

Obama was born in Kenya, he travelled to Pakistan on a foreign passport (renouncing American Citizenship) while there was a ban on US citizens allowed to travel to that country, he attended Occidental College and received financial aid for foreign students (because he applied with his foriegn passport), he also attended a Muslim orientated school in Indonesia that only taught to Indonesian citizens or of muslim faith. SOO, while the commentor may be a low life thinking his off-spring was trash, he would not be so erred in judgment to think Obama was born in Kenya; [even if Obama wasn't born in Kenya, he renoucned American Citizenship and is inelligible to take position of the President of the USA, so he might as well have been born in Kenya].

walkin07 Aug 10th 2009 9:33AM

LOL Sweatpea. The wealthy are drinking $150 A GLASS liquors; they can afford it because there were few contracts with artists back in Duke Ellington's day. This is a case of faux riche branding. Not being a cognac drinker, I couldn’t tell how good this liqueur is, but I doubt that it’s top shelf.

EJ Aug 13th 2009 2:52PM

Walking 7 - Why would you assume that it's not top shelf, because you wouldn't buy or you never heard of it? Well guess what at $150 a bottle I doubt that you even know what top shelf is. If these companies want to use a name that will sell, then do it the right way.

Joe Laberge Aug 10th 2009 9:54AM

Why not split the profits from every bottle sold and everyone wins. Not just the lawyers.

wisdom4578 Aug 10th 2009 10:01AM

Would have been better to ask then just do it. Why do people think they can get away with this and nothing will happen...Happy Birthday to my son today he would have been 27 yrs old. I love you David. www.money-burge.com

Bill Aug 10th 2009 10:51AM

Everyone is entitled to there own comments. but who is Duke Ellington???

jan Aug 10th 2009 11:59AM

hayyyyyyyyyyy Bill just how old are you lol

servicemasterwv Aug 10th 2009 11:06AM

geeezzz its just a name almost forgot about duke untill this story seems family would be proud his name lives on but greed gets in the way

Mark A. Johnson Aug 10th 2009 11:44AM

AmazonRipper here, "Duke Ellington" was and is an accomplished individual. Many people remember him and in their own way wish to honor his memory, this cognac may very well be one of them. There are different qualities of cognac, the very best I'm sure is of full body with a flavour that any conneseur would be proud to have in their stock. Some cognacs have a taste that would make some think them better served as a varnish thinner, very nasty. The maker of the above said cognac with the name of "Duke Ellington" made an offer to appease the Ellington family, but was apparently refused. To demand everything the maker of the cognac profitted is demanding too much, after all the maker went through a lot of trouble to make it, bottle it and give it the prestige it deserved and in doing so deserves to make some profit for his efforts. When someone makes an effort to honor a person and offers to share the profits, you don't slap them in the face,insult their efforts, and then demand everything they have! Also I'm sure any good attorney can find in some written history of an actual and previous "Duke of Ellington", (which posibly may have been where "Duke" also got his namesake from even though others bestowed it on him). Such past earlier established "Duke of Ellington" may have also been a conneseur of very good liquors, cognac included. In such a case the Ellington family may not get anything at all for their apparent greed or posible religious distaste for alcoholic beverages.

iwade5600 Aug 10th 2009 12:17PM

Good luck to the family ,but I'm wounering what does (Negotiations Never Completed ) , it not as if someone was in the store one day and happen to see a $150.00 bottle Duke/E Cognac on the self and contacted the family. It's hard to belive that a company would invest millions into putting a new product on the market and not have some idea of the trademark rights. Something is not on the up & up here.
To the Ellington family , don't kill the golden goose (It's better to have 25% of the profits for a lifetime than all the profits for one year. After all Harbrew has done all the work all you have to do is go to the mailbox and get the check. And with the economy in the state that it is in WHO is buying $150.00 Cognac??? Bad timeing , very bad timeing.

To:HARBREW IMPORTS If there is any chance you might lose the court case JUST Drop It. Pull it from the market pay the Ellingtons off and store it for two/ three yrs then sell as a colletable for $200.00 ea. Or you can flood the market with all you have in stock at cost ,keep all blend rights & packageing and rename the cognac MICHELLE/the first with a sister blend named CONDOLEZZA / xo or CONDOLEZZA/ Executive. Both would be a smooth , rich, brown blend with great teatse. After all who all who is going to pay $150.00 for something call Beyonce , Jay-z or Little-Kim. Please. You will need a name of someone of class and respect.
Or just give someone in the Ellington family with the Ellington name a position with Harbrew as VP of U.S. Sales or something, with a car, office good salary based on sales. Sales good , salary good sales go down salary goes down.

| 1 | 2 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments