DJ Spankox disputes ruling in Elvis case

Share this article

 _{Remix album of Elvis Presley Christmas classics.}

A Europe-based disc jockey is disputing a British court ruling against him in a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Elvis Presley Enterprises.

The Memphis-based company won a judgment on February 1 in a British chancery court against Agostino Carollo, known as DJ Spankox.

The company had sued Carollo, alleging breach of contract and trademark infringement related to a Christmas remix album that included the company's trademarks, logos and photos.

Carollo was barred from infringing on company trademarks and ordered to pay damages and lawyer's fees.

Carollo, who has worked with Elvis Presley Enterprises before, denies wrongdoing and says he is working to get the ruling discharged.

He says he feels "stabbed in the back".

This is the E--mail Agostino Carollo, known as DJ Spankox sent:

First of all I'd like to say that I never infringed anything. On the contrary, I've been doing quite a lot for Elvis Presley and his Estate.

For those who don't know, Elvis Presley Enterprises and Sony Music have been selling since 2008 my Elvis Presley remixed songs and they largely benefited by the fact that I've brought Elvis back to the top of the International record sales charts, introducing Elvis Presley to a whole new generation and to millions of new fans worldwide. Also the promotional value of my work for Elvis Presley and Graceland has been huge.

My "Re:Versions" album was in 2008 the first official Elvis Presley remix album in history. It was praised by the original Presley's producers like Mike Stoller and band mates like DJ Fontana and I was called by EPE to Graceland to present my work to thousands of Elvis fans. When last summer this Claim was notified to me I was already working on the new remix of "Fever" and on the forthcoming Elvis Presley "Re:Volution" album, so it felt like a friend had stabbed me in the back.

Having said this, I'm not accepting this ruling and I'm already working to ask the Court to discharge it because I think it is not correct. In primis Field Fisher Waterhouse (EPE's lawyers) didn't follow the compulsory pre-action protocol.

They filed the Claim out of nowhere, without even trying to contact me with one single letter, accusing me of infringing EPE's copyright when they instead knew that I didn't infringe anything. They also chose the wrong jurisdiction (it should be Italy, where I'm based, not UK) and asked to the Court to set the hearing in London exactly in the days when, as I wrote them, I couldn't have attended it because I was busy for shows in Italy.

In Italy this would not be acceptable and I'm surprised that this can happen in the UK. I'm also surprised that the judge didn't consider all this nor my lawful request (supported by evidence) of rejecting the jurisdiction because I live in Italy, not in the UK, and the fact that I have valid agreements in place with EPE, which were completely ignored.

Anyway I think the biggest problem to solve now remains to Elvis Presley Enterprises and their lawyers Field Fisher Waterhouse. In fact I was suspecting that behind this Claim there was something else: my relationship with EPE had been fantastic so I couldn't explain this sudden Claim. So I investigated and I found out that they were working on a remix album entitled "Viva Elvis", that I think was largely inspired by my "Re:Versions"; it also included some of the same songs that I remixed and were included in "Re:Versions" and "Re:Mixes".

Later I found that they had been infringing my own intellectual property and copyright using without any authorization my own original slogan "Elvis as you've never heard him before", created by me and used since 2008 for the promotion and sale of my Elvis Presley "Re:Versions" album (the first historical official Elvis Presley's remix album, also released by Sony in the UK), for the promotion and sale of their "Viva Elvis" album in the UK and worldwide (see attached photos).

This has been obviously causing a big damage to me and also amounts to passing off. I'm now waiting to hear back from EPE's lawyers to know if they prefer to set this matter amicably or not.

_{Source; news.ninemsn.com.au / EpGold}