“American Nightmare” Trademark Infringement Lawsuit Against Cody Rhodes, WWE, & Fanatics Update – WWE & Fanatics Filed Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit

As noted before, a lawsuit was filed against Cody Rhodes, WWE, and Fanatics was filed this past September by punk rock band American Nightmare’s lead singer Wesley Eisold over allegations of trademark infringement and breach of contract regarding Rhodes’ usage of the “American Nightmare” name in wrestling and for merchandise.

Wrestlenomics and Post Wrestling’s Brandon Thurston reported that WWE and Fanatics filed a motion on Friday requesting for the lawsuit against them and Rhodes, real name Cody Runnels, to be dismissed based on recent court records.

In the filing, Thurston reported that the defendants claims largely hinges on the notion that the WWE merchandise Eisold is suing them over is accompanied by the Rhodes skull logo trademark.

The defendants reportedly are also claiming that all of the “American Nightmare” apparel that Eisold claims are infringing do not meet the Eisold-Rhodes settlement deal due to they include the skull logo that Rhodes also has tattooed on his neck. They also are claiming that because of the skull logo, which Rhodes owns a trademark for wrestling purposes, appears alongside “American Nightmare” text, the conditions of the settlement deal remains satisfied.

The defendants reportedly are also claiming that Rhodes’ skull logo is actually part of Rhodes’ likeness because it is tattooed on Rhodes’ neck and that the trademark by virtue of its use for wrestling purposes amounts to “substantial indicia indicating association with wrestling.”

“Runnels [Rhodes] has a prominent neck tattoo of the Skull Mark, which, by virtue of Runnels’ worldwide popularity, has become widely recognized as part of his ‘likeness’.

[C]onsumers have become accustomed to associating the Skull Mark, with not only wrestling, but with a single source, namely, Runnels.”

In the filing, WWE and Fanatics reportedly also argues that they did not know the Eisold-Rhodes settlement deal existed until shortly just before Eisold had filed his lawsuit against them and Rhodes. They also claimed that they didn’t see the contract itself until it was included in the complaint and argue that they can not be held liable for causing Rhodes to breach the contract when they did not have knowledge that it existed.