(27 Nov 2014, 5:16 pm)AdamY wrote If CM Punk is owed money from merchandise then he's legally entitled to it irrespective of whether he's employed by the company or not. Around two decades ago, a court ruled in favour of Jesse "The Body" Ventura claim to royalties on merchandise featuring his likeness despite not being employed by company time.So essentially if he actually is taking legal action, WWE would be laughed out of the courtroom...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Ventura#Litigation
The person, Phil Brooks, devised the character, CM Punk, long before WWE came calling. If Punk had debuted in a WWE-owned company then WWE could feasibly lay claim to the character. This is what happened with The Dudley Boys. They debuted and wrestled in ECW from 1996-99 before moving on to WWF/E. Vince McMahon bought the rights to ECW when they folded in 2001 which included television and merchandise assets dating back to 1995. Because of this, McMahon essentially owned the rights to The Dudley Boys forcing them to change to their current, Team 3D moniker when they moved onto TNA.
So does the name and anything relating to it legally belong to Phil Brooks, I know sod all about business/corporate law...
Did Jim Hellwig take action against WWE in he 90's over the Ultimate Warrior name, going as far as changing his name legally to Warrior or have I imagined that lol
