Experience Hendrix, the company which controls Jimi Hendrix's back catalog and copyrights, today filed a lawsuit in federal court against Andrew Pitsicalis and his Las Vegas-based HendrixLicensing.com. Per an Experience Hendrix press release, "Pitsicalis and his company are accused with intentionally and wrongfully profiting from the use of Experience and Authentic Hendrix registered trademarks."
Headed by Jimi's stepsister, Janie Hendrix (pictured at left), EH's litigious streak is well-documented, most recently in this week's SW cover story on Jimi's baby brother, Leon Hendrix.Following is the full text of EH's release:
For 13 years the Hendrix family owned and operated companies have continued to protect the legacy of Jimi Hendrix--the most innovative, imaginative and greatest guitarist ever. Today, Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. and Authentic Hendrix LLC, filed a federal lawsuit in the Washington District Court against Andrew Pitsicalis and his Las Vegas-based HendrixLicensing.com LTD. Pitsicalis and his company are accused with intentionally and wrongfully profiting from the use of Experience and Authentic Hendrix registered trademarks.
The suit charges that Pitsicalis and his companies have purposefully committed gross trademark infringements and other illegal acts through their marketing and licensing of Jimi Hendrix branded merchandise. Pitsicalis was formerly associated with Craig Dieffenbach owner of Hendrix Electric Vodka. Last month, the same federal court entered a $3.2 million judgment against Dieffenbach, and also permanently enjoined him and his company from using Jimi Hendrix trademarks.
Janie Hendrix, President/CEO of Experience Hendrix commented on the unlawful use of Experience Hendrix and Authentic Hendrix trademarks by Pitsicalis: "Protection of my brother's legacy and his unique gift is our family's highest priority. We've long used an iconic headshot and signature on products that we and our legitimate licensee partners market. Mr. Pitsicalis, clearly, is helping himself to our trademarks in an effort to confuse our customers and to take advantage of the brands we've established over the course of many years. In light of this, Just as we were compelled to do with Mr. Dieffenbach, we have no choice but to ask the Court to halt these blatant infringements. My father's vision in establishing our family companies was to vigorously protect and preserve the legacy of our beloved Jimi. Our action in this case is consistent with that vision and we are confident that we will prevail as we have in all previous litigations."