Settlement reached in Seattle artist's 'Angry Birds' lawsuit
SEATTLE (Reuters) - A Seattle artist has settled her intellectual property lawsuit against pet products maker Hartz Mountain Corp in which she claimed she was cheated out of millions of dollars from the sale of "Angry Birds" pet toys she designed, her attorney said on Tuesday.
A settlement notice filed in U.S. District Court in Washington state in December said all claims against all parties in the lawsuit had been resolved, though it did not provide details of the settlement agreement.
Seattle artist Juli Adams sued New Jersey-based Hartz Mountain Corp in August 2014 seeking monetary damages.
"Juli is very happy with the result," said Tony Shapiro, her attorney. He declined to disclose the terms of the settlement, saying they were confidential.
According to court documents, Hartz said a company representative asked Adams in the summer of 2006 to design a line of plush pet toys, and Adams and the company reached a five-year licensing agreement in November of that year.
Adams argued that Hartz violated that licensing agreement when it entered into a side deal with mobile games maker Rovio to begin selling a line of pet toys based on characters from the Finnish company's hugely popular "Angry Birds" video game that came out in 2009.
In her complaint, Adams argues that she designed the "Angry Birds" pet toy line and at some point between December 2009 and November 2011, Hartz illegally used Adams' intellectual property and "Angry Birds" trademark.
The company argued it had ownership of the "Angry Birds" trademark and that the license covered Adams' drawings or illustrations of animals.
Attorneys for Hartz did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In December 2014, U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik denied Hartz's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. A jury trial had been scheduled to begin on Jan. 4, 2016.
Hartz "unfairly and deceptively garnered millions of dollars in profits from the work of Plaintiff," Adams' initial complaint said. It added that a corporation "must not make lucrative side deals that cut-out the artist for its own benefit."
(Reporting by Eric M. Johnson in Seattle; Editing by Daniel Wallis and Alan Crosby)
