Devinn Lane Attorney Comments on Trademark

Christopher Karwowski
LOS ANGELES — The Devinn Lane court case has become a hot topic among webmasters on adult online forums.

As previously reported in XBIZ, Lane is currently suing adult studios Vivid, Digital Playground and other major producers for trademark violation.

The suit alleges that several companies purchased domain name variants of her trademarked name, resulting in infringement of trademark, trademark dilution and cybersquatting, according to the suit.

The suit has drawn the interest of adult webmasters. A recent thread on popular webmaster board Oprano.com features a lively discussion of the suit's finer points.

Among the contributors to the thread is Lane's attorney, Michael Fattorosi.

"Since I am the attorney on this one, I can assure you that all of the replies have been wrong so far ..." Fattorosi added to the thread. "Devinn was a contract star for Wicked. There are no signed releases for DP or Vivid. She has her name trademarked and it is now a famous mark. You guys are really missing the bigger story here," Fattorosi continued.

At the heart of the suit lies the issue of trademark. Lane accuses the studios of trying to benefit from her name and identity. Some webmasters posting to the board believe that her previous performances and identity were part of her contract

Fattorosi had no comment for XBIZ, but he did clarify his client's case further on the Oprano thread by stating, "Here's what most people need to understand: just because you guys shoot a girl does not give you unfettered rights to her name," Fattorosi continued.

"This is a rather common misperception. There are literally hundreds of names being squatted on, or in a best-case scenario for me, infringed upon. With a MR, you can use her name — trademarked or not — after the top-level domain name, i.e., devinnlanexxx.com is not legal, but www.pornstars.com/devinnlane.htm is perfectly acceptable. Even if Wicked did resell content to Vivid or Digital Playground, which I cant imagine they would do, those rights will not include trademark rights. She owns her trademark."