Good ol' San Miguel Red Horse...I never liked it but others swore by it.
Posted on 01/08/2004 11:23:07 AM PST by Land_of_Lincoln_John
SIOUX FALLS — Negotiations are under way to settle a decade-old court case that claimed a New York brewer used the name of Sioux warrior Crazy Horse on a brand of malt liquor without permission.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Piersol dismissed the lawsuit and gave both sides until Feb. 9 to reopen the case if settlement talks don't bear fruit.
"I believe it's the right thing to do," Seth H. Big Crow, administrator of the Crazy Horse estate, said of the pending settlement.
"To me, the idea is to preserve the name" of Crazy Horse, he said.
The case had been scheduled to go to trial next week.
The dispute began in 1992 when Hornell Brewing Co. of Brooklyn, N.Y., bottled "The Original Crazy Horse Malt Liquor." Sales began in March 1992.
In 1993, Crazy Horse's descendants sued the company in tribal court, but appellate courts ruled the case belonged in federal jurisdiction. The most recent suit was filed Oct. 30, 2000, in U.S. District Court in Sioux Falls. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe joined the Crazy Horse estate and Big Crow in the suit.
"In principle, it's settled," Robert Gough, attorney for the estate, said.
"We were encouraged by the court toward the end of last year" to reach a settlement, he said.
"It's the normal process of the federal court ... to see if there is a way to settle these things without going to court."
An amended complaint filed March 13, 2002, asked the court to stop Hornell from using the name or likeness of Crazy Horse to sell any product. The plaintiffs wanted a judge to order the malt-liquor products or containers to be collected and destroyed.
They also sought damages related to what Hornell has made from using Crazy Horse's name on their product, additional damages to compensate the family for emotional distress, punitive damages and other demands.
An attorney for Hornell could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
Gough said both sides will announce the results of settlement talks, probably later this month. "We're working the final details of what we believe will be a fair settlement."
Crazy Horse was an Oglala Sioux warrior who led the defeat of Lt. Col. George A. Custer at the Battle of the Little Bighorn on June 25, 1876.
Big Crow, 65, said his great-grandmother and Crazy Horse's mother were sisters.
He said Hornell must take the Crazy Horse name off the label and that if the settlement is not to his liking, the case will go back to court.
"If I'm not satisfied, we'll go for broke," Big Crow said in a telephone interview.
A tribal judge threw the original case out of tribal court in 1994, prompting an appeal to the Rosebud Supreme Court. In June 1996, the Rosebud court said the tribal court had jurisdiction.
In November 1997, Hornell asked a federal appeals court to take the lawsuit out of tribal court because the product never had been sold on the Rosebud Indian Reservation.
One of the defendants, SBC Holdings, settled with the estate in April 2001. John Stroh III, SBC chairman, read a letter of apology to the Crazy Horse descendants at a ceremony in Mission.
Big Crow said Crazy Horse Malt Liquor is still being sold. "They still have it on the market," he said.
I don't get it, Indians want to be sovereign nations when it comes to building tax free casinos and selling tax free cigarettes but then want to us the US courts when they feel it will benefit them...
Good ol' San Miguel Red Horse...I never liked it but others swore by it.
The treaties were made freely by the US government. The Indians are citizens. The tort took place off reservation. You sue others in the proper venue. If you sue someone in China before your hometown magistrate, how will you get recompense?
That might help you get it.
That might help you get it.
1. If the Indian nation and the US has a treaty covering "copyrights" and other intellectual property
It might be why they tried this case in an Indian court first:
A tribal judge threw the original case out of tribal court in 1994
But if you are going to have treaties that cover mundane things like intellectual property, you are probably going to have treaties that cover reciprocal taxation, fair cost of defense and such...
That might help you get it.
And friend of mine who happens to be an indian (Feather, not dot) thinks the suit is stupid and has a large collection of crazy horse bottles.
The treaties I was refering to were the ones that you seem to deride that gave the Indians the right to do certain things in their own "nation" as you call it. It has nothing to do with copyrights.
I get it, you seem confused. I'm guessing you will never get it and I'm not interested in chasing my tail. Have fun.
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.