Blackmon v. Iverson
324 F. Supp. 2d 602 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2003
Facts
Jamil Blackmon, who considered himself Allen Iverson's "surrogate father" and provided him with financial and personal support since 1987, suggested in July 1994 that Iverson use "The Answer" as a nickname for basketball and for marketing products like clothing and sneakers. Iverson then promised Blackmon 25% of all proceeds from merchandise using "The Answer." Blackmon invested time and money refining the marketing concept, including hiring a graphic designer for logos, and Iverson repeatedly reaffirmed his promise to pay. However, in July 1996, Iverson's lawyers stated he would not use the phrase, though Reebok later began manufacturing and selling products incorporating "The Answer" slogan and logo. Despite Iverson continuing to receive profits from these sales and reiterating his promise on numerous occasions, he never compensated Blackmon. Blackmon conceded that his specific graphics or logos were not incorporated into Reebok's products.
Procedural history
The plaintiff, Jamil Blackmon, sued the defendant, Allen Iverson, for idea misappropriation, breach of contract, and quantum meruit (unjust enrichment). The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss all claims, but allowed the plaintiff to amend the complaint to state a claim for promissory estoppel.
Issue
Can the plaintiff, Jamil Blackmon, succeed on claims of idea misappropriation, breach of contract, or unjust enrichment against the defendant, Allen Iverson, for using "The Answer" nickname and slogan without compensation?
Holding
The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss all claims for idea misappropriation, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff's first amended complaint is dismissed, but the plaintiff may amend the complaint to state a claim for promissory estoppel.
Rule
For idea misappropriation, the plaintiff's idea must be novel and concrete, and the misappropriation must cause the plaintiff a competitive or financial harm, not merely a failure to pay. Novelty means the idea is truly innovative and new, not just a variation of existing ideas. For breach of contract, there must be clear evidence of an agreement, mutual intent to be bound, sufficiently definite terms, and valid consideration, which cannot be past consideration. Unjust enrichment requires benefits conferred on the defendant by the plaintiff, appreciation of those benefits, and inequitable retention without payment, with novelty and concreteness typically required for ideas to be considered a benefit.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.