Basketball star Dennis Rodman claims that a New Jersey company is producing and selling inferior quality T-shirts bearing "Dennis Rodman Tattoos," without his permission. Rodman contends that as a result of his licensing agreements and his having "maintain[ed] and foster[ed] an image in keeping with the high regard in which he is held throughout the sports world," that his tattoos are trademarks.

 
 
Jules D. Zalon, P.C. 
 
226 Oakland Road 
 
Maplewood, New Jersey 07040 
 
Tel: (201) 762-8400 
 
Fax: (201) 762-9242  JZ 5751 
 
 
 
Richard K. Howell, 
 
Anthony J. McCusker, 
 
Rutan & Tucker, LLP 
 
611 Anton Blvd., Suite 1400 
 
Cosa Mesa, California 92628-1950 
 
Tel: (714) 641-5100 
 
Fax: (714) 546-9035 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
 
DENNIS RODMAN, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
FANATIX APPAREL, INC., MICKEY GOLDSCHMIDT, 
JMJ 
INTERNATIONAL, MHK PRODUCTS, INC., JAY ENIS 
and 
JOHN DOES 10, Defendants. 
 
Civil Action No. 
 
 
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE 
RELIEF: 
FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN and INVASION OF 
RIGHT 
OF PUBLICITY 
 
Plaintiff Dennis Rodman, by his attorneys Jules D. Zalon 
and Rutan & Tucker, hereby  
respectfully alleges on knowledge as to plaintiff's own acts 
and on information and belief  
as to all other matters, the following for his complaint 
against the defendants: 
 
A. Plaintiff Dennis Rodman is a citizen and resident of the 
state of Texas. 
 
B. Defendant Fanatix Apparel, Inc. is a New Jersey 
Corporation whose principal place of  
business is at 729 Washburn Street, Teaneck, New Jersey 
07666. 
 
C. Defendant Goldschmidt is the president of Fanatix and 
has caused it to commit the  
acts herein complained of. 
 
D. Defendant JMJ International is a business entity whose 
formal organization is not  
known, but whose principal place of business is at 130 
Gamewell Street, Hackensack,  
New Jersey. 
 
E. Defendant MHK Products, inc. is a New Jersey 
Corporation whose principal place of  
business is at 130 Gamewell Street, Hackensack, New 
Jersey. 
 
F. Defendant Jay Enis is a principal of both defendants JMJ 
International, and MHK  
Products, Inc., and has caused each of them to commit the 
acts herein complained of. 
 
G. Defendants John Does 1-10 are partners of, or are 
otherwise associated with, one or  
another of the named defendants in their production, sale or 
distribution of unauthorized  
Dennis Rodman T-shirts, and are either residents of or 
regularly do business in the State  
of New Jersey. 
 
H. The identities of the individuals described as John Does 
are not presently known; the  
complaint will be amended to include their true names 
when identified. The counts herein  
set forth arise out of their actions within the State of New 
Jersey. 
 
I. The separate counts set forth herein arise under the 
trademark laws of the United States,  
Title 15 U.S.C. 1051, et seq. as well as the common law of 
this state, and jurisdiction and  
venue are founded upon Title 15 U.S.c. 1051 et seq. Title 
28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338, 1391,  
2201 and 2202. The matter in controversy exceeds, 
exclusive of interest and costs, the  
sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) and is between 
citizen of different states. 
 
AS AND FOR A FIRST COUNT FOR VIOLATION OF 
15 U.S.C. 1125(a) 
 
Plaintiff Dennis Rodman is a well known, extremely 
successful and hugely popular  
professional basketball player. Mr. Rodman's exploits on 
the court are legendary: he has  
led the entire National Basketball Association in rebounds 
for five years in a row, a  
record that no other player has ever come close to 
matching; he was named the NBA  
defensive Player of the Year; he has been an NBA All-Star, 
and a member of the NBA  
All Defensive Team. 
 
2. As a result of this popularity, plaintiff has regularly 
received financially lucrative  
offers to license use of his name and likeness on a wide 
variety of products. However, he  
has been careful to limit such merchandising activities only 
to products of the highest  
quality and pursuant to arrangements by which he 
maintains complete control over the  
manner in which such name and likeness is used, such that 
he maintains and fosters an  
image in keeping with the high regard in which he is held 
throughout the sports world.  
Presently plaintiff has authorized Today's Trendz and 
NIKE, Inc. to produce T-shirts  
bearing plaintiff's name and likeness. Both these agreement 
are carefully and constantly  
monitored for quality control purposes, and require the 
licensees to submit all licensed  
articles to plaintiff for his approval. The agreements also 
require the application of  
specific trademark and copyright information on all such 
articles. 
 
3. During the course of his remarkable career, plaintiff has 
at various times arranged with  
different tattoo artists to apply tattoos to his (plaintiff's) 
body. Each tattoo was carefully  
chosen by plaintiff; several were in fact designed by the 
plaintiff. One of the tattoos is a  
meticulously accurate likeness of plaintiff's young 
daughter, Alexis.  
 
4. Plaintiff caused each of these tattoos to be produced, in 
part, for the purpose of  
identifying and associating them with himself, solely.  
 
5. The said tattoos are extremely recognizable and 
identifiable as being "Dennis  
Rodman's tattoos." They are often referred to in published 
articles and television and  
other media segments, always being identified with the 
plaintiff alone. As an indication  
of this identifiability of the tattoos with plaintiff, 
McDonalds and Carl's Jr., two  
nationwide food chains, recently filmed television 
commercials featuring plaintiff's  
tattoos. Moreover, one of plaintiff's nicknames throughout 
the sports world is "Tattoo  
Man." 
 
6. As a result of plaintiff's great public visibility and the 
public's association of plaintiff  
with these tattoos, the tattoos have attained and now 
possess a secondary and distinctive  
trademark meaning to the general public, particularly to 
sports fans. 
 
7. The defendants were, until restrained by this Court, 
producing and distributing a long- 
sleeved T-shirt bearing colorable replications of ten of 
plaintiff's body tattoos, including  
the tattoo of plaintiff's daughter, Alexis; each such tattoo is 
placed on the shirt in the same  
place as the actual tattoo is found on plaintiff's body. 
 
8. The accused shirts are extremely expensive to produce, 
and were therefore, until  
restrained by this Court, being sold at premium prices 
throughout the country.  
Nevertheless, they were being sold in large numbers by 
major chain stores and  
supermarkets, particularly in the Chicagoland area. 
 
9. The only reason why these shirts could have commanded 
such premium prices was  
their identification with plaintiff, being widely described as 
"Dennis Rodman Tattoo T-  
Shirts." In fact, the shirts would have had no commercial 
value but for their association  
with the plaintiff. 
 
10. In advertising and promotional materials issued by or 
authorized by the defendants to  
sell their spurious shirt, the defendants have regularly and 
prominently used the plaintiff's  
name, generally referring to the shirt as their "Dennis 
Rodman Tattoo T-Shirt," and have  
otherwise represented to the public and the trade that the 
shirt was authorized by the  
plaintiff, which is clearly false. 
 
11. Reproduced here is a copy of one such display, from the 
Omni SuperStore in  
Bridgeview, Illinois: 
 
[An actual photograph of such display is annexed to the 
original complaint filed herein.] 
 
12. These shirts are universally recognized as being 
associated with plaintiff even absent  
accompanying use of his name on the shirt itself by the 
defendants. This recognition is a  
direct and natural consequence of the defendants' own 
identification of the shirt as the  
"Dennis Rodman Tattoo T-Shirt," and their like 
representations to their sales reps and  
their customers. In addition, the arrangement of these ten 
replications of plaintiff's body  
tattoos on the defendants' infringing shirt would be -- and 
are -- clearly recognized as  
identifying the plaintiff. For example, newspaper articles, 
television segments and  
Internet "pages" have regularly and prominently identified 
the shirt as the "Dennis  
Rodman Tattoo T-Shirt." 
 
13. Defendants' said merchandise is of the same general 
nature, type and description as  
merchandise licensed by the plaintiff and manufactured and 
distributed by plaintiff's  
various licensees, and defendants' said shirts and plaintiff's 
authorized merchandise are so  
related that the defendants' use is likely to cause confusion 
among purchasers. The use of  
the said tattoos by each of the defendants is without the 
permission or authority of  
plaintiff and said use by the defendants is likely to cause 
confusion, to cause mistake and  
to deceive. 
 
14. The said infringing merchandise of the defendants 
being of inferior quality, the sale  
thereof will be damaging to the reputation which plaintiff 
has developed in connection  
with his licensing of authentic merchandise.  
 
15. The unauthorized sale of such bootleg merchandise is 
likely to create confusion  
and/or misunderstanding by the purchasers as to the source 
and sponsorship of such  
merchandise. 
 
16. The defendants are selling their imitation merchandise 
without the permission or  
agreement of the plaintiff and have not obtained any license 
to manufacture, distribute or  
sell the same. On the contrary, plaintiff has formally 
demanded that they desist from  
selling such infringing shirts, but the defendants have 
ignored such demands and refuse to  
cease such acts. 
 
17. The defendants, and each of them, have been 
transacting and continue to transact  
business in this state and elsewhere in interstate commerce, 
and have been and continue  
to infringe plaintiff's right of publicity in this state and 
elsewhere in interstate commerce,  
and regularly have been and now do business and solicit 
business and derive substantial  
revenue from goods sold, used and consumed in this state 
and elsewhere in interstate  
commerce, including the accused merchandise as aforesaid. 
The defendants, and each of  
them, expected or should have reasonably expected their 
acts, including the  
aforementioned acts and those set forth hereinbelow, to 
have consequence in this state. 
 
18. The defendants, and each of them, have and at all times 
relevant to the acts set forth  
hereinabove had actual and constructive knowledge of the 
rights of plaintiff but have  
proceeded in complete disregard thereof. 
 
19. Unless the defendants are restrained and enjoined from 
selling their unauthorized  
merchandise, their conduct will deprive plaintiff of a 
substantial portion of the income he  
expects to receive from the sale of licensed personality 
merchandise. 
 
20. The defendants' prominent identification of the shirt as 
the "Dennis Rodman Tattoo  
T-shirt" as well as their appropriation and use of these 
tattoos as aforesaid are each false  
descriptions and representations that said goods are made, 
sponsored or approved by, or  
are otherwise affiliated with the plaintiff. Said acts are in 
violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)  
in that defendants are using in connection with goods false 
designations of origin and  
false or misleading descriptions of fact, which are likely to 
cause confusion or to deceive  
as to affiliation, connection or association, or as to 
sponsorship or approval, and have  
caused such goods to enter into or affect interstate 
commerce. Plaintiff believes that he is  
and is likely to be, damaged by such false descriptions and 
representations by reason of  
the likelihood that purchasers will be confused as to the 
true source, sponsorship or  
affiliation of said goods. 
 
AS AND FOR A SECOND COUNT FOR VIOLATION 
OF 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) 
 
21. Plaintiff hereby realleges, as if fully set forth, the 
allegations of Paragraphs 1 through  
20 herein.  
 
22. As a result of the widespread identification of the shirt 
by the defendants, their agents  
and representatives (including sales reps) as being the 
"Dennis Rodman Tattoo T-shirt,"  
the defendants' customers, mostly retail stores, have 
themselves prominently identified  
and described the shirt in like manner, thus exploiting the 
shirt's association and identity  
with the plaintiff in all their promotional and sales 
activities. 
 
23. It was reasonable -- in fact, it was virtually certain -- 
that these (retail store) customers  
would themselves so identify the shirt as the "Dennis 
Rodman Tattoo T-shirt." 
 
24. At the time that they advertised, offered for sale and 
sold their infringing shirt, the  
defendants and each of them must have expected and, 
plaintiff avers, certainly did expect  
that their said customers would so identify and describe the 
shirt. 
 
25. The said identification of the shirt as aforesaid by the 
defendants' customers, the retail  
stores, is a false description and representation that said 
goods are made, sponsored or  
approved by, or are otherwise affiliated with, the plaintiff. 
Said acts are in violation of 15  
U.S.C. 1125(a) in that such retail stores are using in 
connection with goods false  
designations of origin and false or misleading descriptions 
of fact, which are likely to  
cause confusion or to deceive as to affiliation, connection 
or association, or as to  
sponsorship or approval, and have caused such goods to 
enter into or affect interstate  
commerce. The defendants are liable for such false 
designations as contributory  
infringers. Plaintiff believes that he is and is likely to be, 
damaged by such false  
descriptions and representations by reason of the likelihood 
that purchasers will be  
confused as to the true source, sponsorship or affiliation of 
said goods. 
 
AS AND FOR A THIRD COUNT FOR 
MISAPPROPRIATION OF PLAINTIFFS'  
RIGHTS OF PUBLICITY 
 
26. Plaintiff hereby realleges, as if fully set forth, the 
allegations of Paragraphs 1 through  
25 herein. 
 
27. Due to the investment of substantial money, time and 
energy in advertising,  
publicizing and promoting the accomplishments and 
excellence of plaintiff, plaintiff has  
developed and now possesses a separate right of publicity. 
 
28. The said identification of the plaintiff in association 
with the promotion, advertising  
and sale of the defendants' infringing shirt use of such 
tattoos on the defendants'  
infringing shirts constitutes a willful infringement of the 
plaintiff's separate right of  
publicity.  
 
AS AND FOR A FOURTH COUNT FOR 
INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL  
RELATIONS 
 
29. Plaintiffs hereby reallege, as if fully set forth, the 
allegations of Paragraphs 1 through  
28 herein. 
 
30. The unauthorized and unlawful activities of the 
defendants as described hereinabove  
will wrongfully impair the value of the contracts referred to 
in Paragraph 2 herein. 
 
AS AND FOR A FIFTH COUNT FOR UNFAIR 
COMPETITION 
 
31. Plaintiffs hereby reallege, as if fully set forth, the 
allegations of Paragraphs 1 through  
31 herein.  
 
32. The aforesaid acts of the defendants have been and will 
be committed willfully and  
with full knowledge of the rights of plaintiff and with the 
intention of deceiving and  
misleading the public and of wrongfully misappropriating 
and trading upon the nationally  
recognized value of the good will and reputation of the 
plaintiff and of benefiting from  
and depriving plaintiff of the benefits arising from his said 
reputation and goodwill  
inhering therein. 
 
33. The defendants' said misappropriation and unfair 
competition will interfere with the  
plaintiff's rights and ability to exploit the commercial value 
of his name and likeness. 
 
34. Defendants will receive substantial profits from their 
unauthorized use and  
misappropriation of plaintiff's great reputation, and 
defendants will become unjustly  
enriched thereby. The defendants' aforementioned willful 
and unauthorized  
misappropriation of plaintiff's reputation will cause 
substantial and irreparable damage,  
injury and loss to the plaintiff and constitute unfair 
competition. 
 
DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFF 
 
35. By reason of the defendants' acts alleged herein, 
plaintiff has suffered and will  
continue to suffer damage to his reputation and goodwill, 
and has lost sales and profits he  
would have made but for the defendants' acts. 
 
36. Unless the defendants' acts of misappropriation and 
unfair competition are  
immediately restrained and enjoined, the plaintiff will 
suffer irreparable injury in that  
defendants' actions will: 
 
(a) lessen and dilute the value of the plaintiff's 
merchandising rights; 
 
(b) interfere with his ability to exploit, market, and license 
such rights;  
 
(c) create confusion in the marketplace as to the duly 
authorized source of Dennis  
Rodman merchandise; and 
 
(d) deprive plaintiff of his just revenues based upon his 
legal exploitation of his name and  
likeness. 
 
37. It will be impossible to ascertain the amount of 
compensation which could afford  
plaintiff adequate relief for such threatened continuing acts, 
and a multiplicity of judicial  
proceedings would be required. Moreover, the remedies at 
law are not adequate in any  
event to compensate plaintiff for injuries suffered and 
threatened. 
 
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 
 
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays: 
 
1. That defendants, their agents, servants, employees, 
officers, attorneys, successors and  
assigns and all persons acting under the defendants or on 
their behalf, be enjoined  
pendente lite and permanently from: 
 
(a) manufacturing, distributing, selling, offering for sale, 
holding for sale or advertising  
any T-shirt or other product bearing the name or likeness of 
the plaintiff, or bearing any  
of plaintiff's body tattoos, or any colorable variation 
thereof; 
 
(b) representing that any article of merchandise 
manufactured, distributed, sold, held for  
sale or advertised by them is sponsored or authorized by the 
plaintiff; 
 
(c) applying the plaintiff's name or likeness, of any of his 
body tattoos, or any  
reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation 
thereof, to labels,-signs, prints,  
packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended 
to be used or capable of being  
used, or used in connection with the sale, offering for sale, 
distribution or advertising of  
goods or services or in connection with which such use is 
likely to cause confusion or to  
cause mistake or to deceive; 
 
(d) using plaintiff's name, likeness or identity in association 
with the sale, offering for  
sale, distribution or advertising of goods or services in any 
manner; 
 
(e) making, having made for them, selling, distributing or 
disposing of in any manner any  
advertisements or promotional material including ad mats, 
point of sale devises, catalogs,  
letters, posters or brochures using the plaintiff's name or 
likenesses, or using any of  
plaintiff's body tattoos; 
 
(f) filling any order for merchandise associated with 
plaintiff;  
 
(g) engaging in any unfair trade practices or unfair 
competition against the plaintiff; 
 
(h) aiding, abetting, encouraging or inducing another to do 
any of the acts herein  
enjoined. 
 
2. That defendants, and each of them, be required to 
account and pay over to the plaintiff  
all gains, profits and advantages derived by each of them 
from their adjudged unfair  
competition with the plaintiff; from their violation of 
Section 43 (a) of the Lanham Act;  
and from their infringement of the plaintiff's right of 
publicity; as well as the damages  
which the plaintiff has sustained by reason of the 
defendants' said acts. 
 
3. That because of the willful nature of their violation of 
Section 43 (a) of the Lanham  
Act, the Court enter judgment for the plaintiff for three 
times the amount of said  
damages. 
 
4. That the Court award punitive and exemplary damages 
against the defendants and in  
favor of the plaintiff in such sum as it determined at trial by 
reason of the said defendants'  
fraud in using the plaintiff's identity and body tattoos. 
 
7. That the defendants and each of them be required to pay 
to the plaintiff the costs of this  
action, and reasonable attorneys' fees to be allowed by the 
Court. 
 
8. That the defendants be required to deliver up to the 
plaintiff all merchandise and  
material in their possession or under their control which is 
subject to the injunctive order  
of this Court, including all negatives, positives, plates, 
molds, matrices, film positives and  
negatives, screens, and any other materials for making the 
same, for the purpose of  
destruction or other disposition. 
 
9. That the defendants be required to withdraw from their 
customers, retailers and all  
others all of the material specified in Paragraphs 1(a) 
through 1(d) hereof, including  
offering reimbursement for same, and delivering up the 
same to the plaintiff for  
destruction or disposition. 
 
10. That plaintiff have such other and further relief as the 
Court deems just and proper. 
 
_______________________________ 
 
Jules D. Zalon 
 
Attorney for Plaintiff