Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Museum Boutique Intercontinental, Ltd. v. Picasso

886 F. Supp. 1155 (1995)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...

Museum Boutique Intercontinental, Ltd. v. Picasso

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

886 F. Supp. 1155 (1995)

Facts

Following the death of Pablo Picasso, the reproduction rights of his work were jointly held by his heirs (defendants), including two of his children, Claude Picasso (defendant) and Paloma Picasso (defendant) (collectively, the Picasso heirs). Claude was appointed the administrator. The Picasso heirs granted the Societe de la Propriete Artistique et des Dessins et Modeles (SPADEM) (defendant) the right to manage reproductions of Picasso’s work, among other rights. Museum Boutique Intercontinental, Ltd. (MBI) (plaintiff) obtained an exclusive license to reproduce some of Picasso’s works and create derivative works of them, but over the next 10 years MBI was in litigation with SPADEM and the Picasso heirs over those rights. During that time, MBI entered into license agreements with two companies, Nayoya Mitsukoshi Ltd. (Mitsukoshi) and INFAS Co., Ltd., to sell Picasso reproductions and derivative works. MBI claimed that Paloma, Claude, and SPADEM told Mitsukoshi and INFAS that MBI did not have the right to license or sell reproductions of Picasso’s works. MBI claimed that Paloma’s statements made performance of the contracts with Mitsukoshi and INFAS more difficult and lessened the parties’ enjoyment of the contracts. MBI had to provide near-constant reassurances, and Mitsukoshi had to fly $2 million of prototypes to New York for a product review. MBI claimed that as a result of Claude’s, Paloma’s, and SPADEM’s statements to Mitsukoshi and INFAS, MBI had to terminate its contracts with Mitsukoshi and INFAS. MBI filed suit against the Picasso heirs and SPADEM alleging a number of claims. Against Paloma individually, MBI asserted a claim for tortious interference with contract under New York law. Paloma filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim against her individually.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Scheindlin, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 604,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 33,800 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership