PRESS RELEASEFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEPRESS RELEASE
HEADLINE: "Prompt Trial On Merits" Ordered in Crazy Horse Malt Liquor Case.
CONTACT: Robert Gough, Attorney for Estate - (605) 856-2879
ROSEBUD, SD -- June 16, 1995. The Hornell and G. Heileman brewing
companies, and Ferolito, Vultaggio & Sons, who also make "AriZona Iced Teas,"
are ordered by Rosebud Sioux Supreme Court to face a "prompt trial on the
merits" in Rosebud Tribal Court in dispute over the rights to use of the name
of famed Lakota leader, Crazy Horse, on a 40 ounce malt liquor.
"They have reached into our Reservation and stolen his name. They stuck it
on a cheap beer for a quick buck and slapped us in the face with it," said
Seth H. Big Crow, Sr., Administrator for the Estate of Tasunke Witko, a.k.a.
Crazy Horse, who hailed the long awaited decision as a major victory in the
protection of cultural rights. "Crazy Horse fought and died protecting
Indian people from things like alcohol. His spirit and reputation deserve
greater respect. Now, they will be answerable in tribal court." said Big
Crow from his home on the Rosebud Reservation in South Dakota.
The brand has been sold in some forty states since 1992 over the protests of
the family, tribes, churches and numerous national organizations, including
the U.S Congress. The Court noted that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
has twice refused to register the brand label because the mark consists of
matter which "may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute the renowned
Oglala Sioux chief, warrior, and spiritual leader, Crazy Horse."
In a forty page decision entered on June 14th, the Rosebud Sioux Supreme
Court unanimously affirmed the right of the Crazy Horse descendants to
proceed to trial in the tribal court over the appropriation, unwarranted
commercial exploitation and defamation of the Crazy Horse persona. The
decision reverses a lower tribal court's dismissal in 1994 of the suit filed
by the Estate against the beer makers for lack of personal and subject matter
jurisdiction, and remands the case "for a prompt trial on the merits."
Based upon evidence presented by the Estate, the Supreme Court found the
Rosebud Tribal Court does have proper personal and subject matter
jurisdiction to hear the case against the malt liquor producers. The six
justices agreed that defendants "have purposefully availed themselves of the
forum" although they had studiously avoided the actual marketing and sale on
the South Dakota reservation. "Given the marketing and sale of similar - but
non-offending - products in the forum, this avoidance appears to be the most
cynical ploy," the Court noted.
The Court announced that the reach of the Tribe's long arm statute is
"co-existent with the federal due process clause" and that the defendants,
based in Brooklyn, N.Y., and LaCrosse, Wisconsin, had sufficient "minimum
contacts" with the South Dakota reservation and the estate for tribal court
jurisdiction.
The Rosebud Sioux Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the
plaintiffs held a "right of publicity" in the Crazy Horse persona in the
context of commercial exploitation. Plaintiffs are descendants living on the
Cheyenne River, Pine Ridge and Rosebud Sioux Reservations. The Supreme
Court, however, found that the lower tribal court erroneously ignored
numerous facts regarding the defendants' physical and business activities
"'purposefully directed' to the forum, with notice and knowledge of the
potential adverse 'effects'" on the descendants living on the Sioux
reservations.
Administrator Big Crow said, "Time and again, we have asked Ferolito and
Vultaggio to stop using the name of our grandfather, but they chose to ignore
us. Italian people rightly don't like to be associated with gangsters, and
Indian people don't want our spiritual leaders wrongly associated with
alcohol," Big Crow added. "They have forced us into this lawsuit to defend
our rights as human beings to have our grandfather's name and memory
respected. Now, we may finally get our day in court."
In related matters, several states, including Washington and Minnesota, have
prohibited the use of the malt liquor label. In December, the Minnesota
Civil Liberties Union challenged Minnesota's revocation of the brand label on
"free speech" grounds in a lawsuit filed on behalf of these multi-million
dollar beverage producers which is scheduled to be argued on June 20th in St.
Paul.
The beer makers also produce the highly profitable "AriZona Iced Tea" line
of products. Last year, owners Ferolito and Vultaggio reportedly split some
$60 million after taxes from the sale of their beverages packaged in Indian
designs. The "AriZona" products have also been the subject of national
boycotts because of their association with the offensively labeled malt
liquor.
( E N D )