Hendrix family split by trademark case

A U.S. District Court judge heard oral arguments Friday in a complicated trademark case that pits the legal heirs of Jimi Hendrix against a Seattle entrepreneur and the late rock legend's brother, who are using the Hendrix name to sell vodka.

Western District Court Judge Thomas Zilly said he will take the matter under advisement before ruling whether all or part of the case should proceed to trial.

He did not set a date for his decision but said he would try to be "prompt."

Among the issues before the court is whether the picture of Jimi that's used on the vodka — marketed by Craig Dieffenbach and Leon Hendrix — is too similar in design to the image of the guitarist that's been trademarked and used by the legal heirs to sell other goods.

The lawsuit before Zilly is another round in a long, bitterly fought war between different factions of the Hendrix family over the estate.

Because Jimi died without a will, his estate went to his father, Al Hendrix.

Janie Hendrix inherited control of the guitarist's estate when Al Hendrix, her adoptive father, died in 2002.

Leon Hendrix took Janie to court over Al's will, arguing that Janie tricked their father and took advantage of his naiveté to have Leon cut out of the will. He, and other relatives, also claimed that Janie and another relative mismanaged the estate, paying themselves huge salaries while others named in the will went without.

Janie's lawyers successfully countered that Al cut off his younger son after he grew tired of Leon's addiction-fueled requests for money.

The King County Superior Court judge upheld Al's will, denying Leon a share in the estate, but took some control of the estate from Janie.

The suit now before Zilly was sparked in 2005 when Dieffenbach and Leon Hendrix began to market Hendrix Electric Vodka.

The specialty spirit is packaged in a bottle tinged with purple that, in addition to the family name, sports an image of an "older" Jimi Hendrix with a large Afro.

In the lawsuit filed last year, Janie Hendrix claimed that Dieffenbach was committing trademark infringement and fraud.

She said the image was too close to several similar images that her companies have trademarked.

She also said that using Jimi's likeness to promote alcohol was particularly offensive because Jimi Hendrix's death in 1970 was found to be connected to the use of intoxicants.

In a separate but related 2003 case, Zilly ruled that because Jimi died in London while listed as a resident of New York — which at the time did not protect people's "publicity rights" beyond their death — there were no existing publicity rights to inherit. Therefore, Janie and her companies did not, and could not, own them.

Dieffenbach and Leon Hendrix said they chose to market alcohol because they think it properly embodies the spirit of the guitarist and because it did not overlap with any of Janie's business interests.

In a counterclaim by Dieffenbach, he claims Janie has continued to fraudulently license the "nonexistent" rights to Jimi's name, image and likeness.

He has asked the judge to strip Janie's companies of some of the trademarks claimed.

John Wilson, an attorney for Janie Hendrix and her companies, said the trademarks are valid. He said Dieffenbach went out of his way to make the logo on the vodka bottle similar to the trademark most often used by Janie's companies.

Leon Hendrix said he has as much right as Janie to make money off his late brother's fame. He said, "She cheated me out of my inheritance. She blackmailed my father. I had to go find another business, another way to make money to send my kids to college."

Christine Clarridge: 206-464-8983 or cclarridge@seattletimes.com