Thanks to those of you who forwarded me the latest on the Nicolas Cage saga,This week we saw his two New Orleans houses listed in a sheriff's sale and heard rumors that he is selling his castle in Bath, England. Many have speculated about what could have happened to Cage, a man who has made a great deal of money over the years for starring in many Hollywood blockbusters.

Now it turns out that Cage has someone to blame, his business manager Samuel Levin. TMZ has a copy of a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The suit claims that Levin was reckless and incompetent and put Cage into a situation in which he has to sell off major assets and is facing tax liabilities (he owes the IRS over $6 million). Cage wants at least $20 million minimum from Levin in order to set things right, a number that reflects just how much Cage has lost over real estate deals in the past couple of years. Levin worked for Cage seven years but it wasn't until he fired Levin that Cage said he learned the full extent of the damage done.


[Thanks Stephen and Bill]

Bartholomew Broadbent let me know that his father Michael Broadbent has settled his lawsuit against Random House for defamation of character for his potrayal in the book The Billionaire's Vinegar by Benjamin Wallace. The book centered on the infamous Jefferson wine bottles and in Broadbent's view suggested that Michael Broadbent, an esteemed wine writer and auctioneer and head of Christie's wine department from 1966 to 1992 had behaved in an unprofessional manner. Broadbent's relationship with Hardy Rodenstock, the discoverer of the bottles was called into account.

The book tells the story of German collector, Rodenstock who had allegedly found rare bottles of Chateau Lafite walled up in a basement in Paris. An 1787 Lafite engraved Th:J sparked worldwide interest because it was thought that Jefferson had bought the bottles when he was in Paris serving as ambassador. Three of the bottles were sold at Christie's, where Broadbent worked, between 1985 and 1987 including the the 1787 Lafite which was bought by Malcolm Forbes for $156,450 fin a 1985 auction.

The billionaire in the title is William Koch who sued Rodenstock claiming that he was the source for four Jefferson bottles that Koch bought in 1988. Those bottles are now believed to be fake. Rodenstock has said that the bottles were genuine but has not submitted them for testing. The book sold well and a Will Smith-produced film of the story is in development. Broadbent told Decanter that the sum he settled for was ''not excessive, but enough to buy a good few cases of wine, and to give something to the wine trade benevolent fund." He also said he was celebrating with a magnum of Mouton 1990 at a dinner he and his wife Daphne held for his legal team at his club, Brooks's in Mayfair. He is considering whether or not to take out an injunction on the film.

Author Benjamin Wallace has defended his book. His statement, published on Dr. Vino, says that Broadbent has "chosen to blame the messenger, and doubly so that he is blaming the messenger for something the messenger is not actually saying." Wallace says that his book never portrayed Broadbent as acting in bad faith. Random House has agreed not to distribute the book in the U.K. but it remains available in the United States and elsewhere.

Coach and Target are at it again. In 2006 the luxury handbag brand took on the retailer over designs that looked similar to their offerings and that case ended in a private settlement. Now Coach is ready to step back into court with Target over a fresh set of designs that look just a little too close to their own much-more-expensive offerings. Coach filed a complaint last week in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. At issue are Coach's Ergo bags and the Signature Patchwork bags similar to the one shown at right. Coach says that starting this summer Target began to sell knockoffs of these bags.

The craze for the handbags has lead to a rapid uptick in a lookalikes in the past few years. Once a popular style hits the mainstream it is rapidly copied. While out-and-out counterfeits are illegal and relatively easy to identify the business of similarity is far muddier. Earlier this year Gucci took on Guess? Inc. for trademark infringement saying that the company's use of the "g" logo and interlocking G pattens were too similar and damaging to the Gucci brand. Both Coach and Gucci are seeking similar resolution in the form of damages, attorneys fees and injunctions against selling the similar designs.

As if a lawsuit in state court weren't enough, Leibovitz may find herself in front of a federal judge, soon. Italian photographer Paolo Pizzetti filed the complaint, alleging that Leibovitz had hired him to take site-scouting photos and then used his product – without permission – in a LavAzza calendar, passing the photos off as her own. Specific sites shot include the Trevi Fountain in Rome and Plaza San Marco in Venice. The calendar was released last October. Pizzetti is looking for $150,000 per infringement and other unspecified damages. The Leibovitz camp has no comment yet, as it hasn't reviewed Pizzetti's filings.

Actress Claire Forlani may have played the girlfriend of an artist in one of my favorite movies, "Basquiat," but she's no fan of one art dealer. Forlani is being sued by art dealer Paul Rusconi after she sent out a mass email to friends saying that he sold her some fake pieces. Forlani's email said that he overcharged her on some Warhol pieces and also misrepresented other pieces as works by William Claxton and Keith Haring. Rusconi said he did nothing wrong and is seeking nearly $25 million in damages. Forlani's lawyer, Marty Singer, told TMZ that the lawsuit is "is absurd and totally without merit."

Now, the Cliff Walk -- or, at least, the City of Newport, the State of Rhode Island and the Preservation Society of Newport County, owner of the Breakers mansion, whose grounds the path crosses -- is the target of a lawsuit before the Rhode Island Supreme Court, according to a story in The Providence Journal by reporter Mike Stanton.

The argument: it's hard for tourists to determine where the path-proper ends, and dangerously unstable rocky terrain begins. That's what happened nine summers ago to one honeymooning tourist, Simcha Berman, then 23. He was walking along the path with his new wife when they took a few steps towards the ocean to get a better look at the waves. The path gave way beneath him, Berman fell on to the rocks below, and is now a quadriplegic. It's not the first major incident on the Cliff Walk either, Stanton's article cites two deaths in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and the newspaper's blog reports that just last summer, an Indiana woman fell from the path to serious injuries.

The court will decide whether Berman is entitled to millions, and the question is, what, if anything should be done to the Cliff Walk to prevent such accidents from occurring? Should the walk be fenced off? It's easy to see how that would really interfere with the experience of the ocean vista. Or is this a case of tourists simply not using common sense? (That seems to be the take of the Providence Journal, given the headline: Visitors to Newport Often Put Themselves at Risk.)

When I visited Newport a couple of weeks ago, I did spot a warning sign near the Breakers. It first concerned itself with making sure that tourists properly respected the rights of the the property owners, but then, it clearly stated "this trail has rugged terrain and can be difficult to pass." Although, I have to say, this particular sign didn't say anything about the potential for serious injury or even death on the walk. Perhaps it's implied, but a stroll along the Cliff Walk certainly didn't seem like anything too frightening, even on that particular moody, foggy gray day.

One of Newport's grand Cliff Walk estates, Hopedene is on the market for $19.5 million. Pictures are below.

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.

Poet Lloyd Goffe has filed one of the most outrageous lawsuits I've seen in a while. He's suing Oprah Winfrey for $1 trillion. He says that Oprah plagarized portions of his book "A Tome of Poetry" and repackaged a poem called "Pieces of My Soul" and published it under her name. The lawsuit alleges that Oprah confessed to doing this in April 2008. Goffe says that since Oprah sold more than 650 million copies of her work online at a $20 each she therefore owes $1.2 trillion. The Cleveland Leader has the rather ridiculous documents.

[Thanks, Ben!]

Guess Jeans co-founder and current California gubernatorial candidate Georges Marciano is going to have a big bill to pay. The LA Times reports that a jury has delivered a big award in the case of five former employees who sued Marciano for defamation. The drama began back in 2007 when Marciano sued the five employees saying that they were stealing his e-mails and other personal information and were part of a conspiracy to sell art and wine from his personal collection.

The employees countersued for harassment and defamation. And this is where it really gets weird. Marciano didn't cooperate with pretrial proceedings or defend himself at the trial. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Elizabeth White excluded him from court proceedings earlier this year because he had repeatedly failed to show up at depositions. In response Marciano has taken his battle against the judge to his campaign website and blog saying that the judged denied him his rights. He has also sued her in federal court. He will also likely appeal the case.

Once again the use of the Donald Trump name has gotten a developer in trouble. Earlier this year angry investors sued Donald Trump and Los Angeles developer Irongate Wilshire over the failure of the Trump Ocean Resort Baja Mexico. Now some of the buyers at the new Trump International Hotel & Tower Waikiki Beach Walk have filed a lawsuit looking to get out of their sales contracts. Once again they said that Irongate misrepresented Donald Trump's role in one of their projects. The sellers claim that Irongate said in 2006 that Donald Trump was a co-developer of the 38-story project but that the developer had only licensed the Trump name. The lawsuit alleges that Irongate concealed the terms of the license. The popular project set records in 2006 when sales opened and the units sold out in a single day with units selling for millions of dollars.

The lawsuit says that the buyers were only told right before final deposits were due that the project was Trump in name only. This led to concerns about the worth of the real estate if Trump pulls his name from the project. The AP reports that the lawsuit will be amended to add more buyers. The Trump name was also involved in a similar lawsuit in Florida. Trump is not named in these lawsuits but certainly they must bolster his belief in the value of his name and brand.

Proving once again that luxury brands have no sense of humor, Cartier sued Apple over an iPhone app that displayed obvious fake watches including a version that looked like Cartier's popular Tank design. The "Fake Watch" and "Fake Watch Gold Edition" apps allowed users to show the time on " look-alike famous wristwatches" on Apple's iPhone and iPod Touch. The obvious fakes used names like "Relax" for Rolex and "Carpark" for Cartier. "Fake Watch" was a free download and "Fake Watch Gold Edition" sold for 99 cents in Apple's iTunes store. No word on if Cartier sued the maker of the app, Digitopolis Game Studio.

But almost as soon as the fracas began, it was over. The Wall Street Journal reports that Cartier is withdrawing the suit that it filed earlier in the same day after the apps were removed from iTunes.

EBay, the world's largest Internet auctioneer, is jubilant after winning one of their many lawsuits regarding counterfeit products. A French court found that eBay was not liable for counterfeit L'Oreal perfumes sold on its website. The Parisian court ruled that eBay had met its obligantion to prevent sales of fake goods. The victory is a bit of a surprise considering earlier losses in France to Hermes and LVMH in similar cases however eBay did recently win against watchmaker Rolex.

After the ruling eBay issued a press release saying in part that " We are delighted that eBay's meaningful efforts to fight counterfeits online have been recognized by the court, as has our status as an internet-hosting provider. Today, 99% of all items listed on eBay have no suspicion of counterfeits." That''s a pretty bold claim. The auction site does have a team of around 2,000 people in place to fight counterfeit products on the site but it seems a bit soon to declare a total victory in the war against counterfeits.

Guess has created handbags that ape the looks of designer bags for far less money for years but Gucci has had enough. Bloomberg reports that Gucci Group's U.S. unit is suing Guess? Inc. for trademark infringement. The companies both make ample use of the "g" logo and both do interlocking G pattens and embossed leather (or in Guess's case, vinyl).

Gucci's lawsuit claims that the knockoffs are no homage but are instead "part of a sophisticated and elaborate scheme to target Gucci, to create products that are similar in appearance to the most popular and best-known Gucci products." Gucci is seeking damages as well as a court order banning Guess from using the disputed designs and calling for surrender of all the existing bags in question.

Copying has become commonplace in the fashion world especially when a lower-priced line imitates a more expensive brand. It becomes a question of just how similar the designs are and whether or not the lookalike handbags and wallets are damaging the Gucci brand.

Last month angry investors sued Donald Trump and Los Angeles developer Irongate Wilshire over the failure of the Trump Ocean Resort Baja Mexico. Now Trump is fighting back with a lawsuit of his own. His lawsuit accuses Irongate Wilshire's principals of not following through on the plans for the five-star resort which bore his name.

Would-be owners of the condos are asking the courts for the return of $32 million of down payments made in 2006 and 2007. Trump's suit is for $40 million in compensatory and punitive damages and that the lawsuit will help buyers get their money back. The LA Times reports that Trump felt "unfairly targeted" by the buyers' lawsuit because he was not a developer of the project, it was just using his name but that he doesn't like to see people lose money. The owners just want their money back whether it comes from Trump or anyone else.

Another week, another Louis Vuitton lawsuit. This time Louis Vuitton is taking on Google in the European Court of Justice. When a person googles a brand name they can see paid search results which can belong to companies selling similar bags or replica bags and counterfeits. Parent company LVMH says that Google shouldn't be allowed to sell those brand name search words to other advertisers and that they should belong only to the brand that licenses them.

Google has already appealed the case after a French court ruled that it had violated trademark rights which is why it has been kicked up to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Google lawyer Alexandra Neri has said that Google only makes money when a person clicks on the ad and that: "The decision to click or not to click belongs to who -- clearly to the Internet user."

Certain words are blocked from being chosen as keywords in France and according to Bloomberg, when Google's French unit receives proof of a registered trademark it then adds it to the blocked list. In the U.S., Google blocks advertisements that include protected trademarks but LVMH has said Google didn't act quickly enough and only makes a move when it is told there is an infraction (this sounds a lot like LVMH's complaints with eBay over the policing of their site).

This case will take a while, the advocate general on the case is expected to give a non-binding opinion by June 4 but the final ruling may not come until the end of the year.