Guenther Steiner has struck the first blow in his legal battles with Haas Automation after a lawsuit against the F1 outfit's former team principal was dismissed.
Steiner was sued by Haas in May in relation to the publication last year of his autobiography, 'Driving to Survive'. It was alleged that Steiner, along with publisher Ten Speed Press, breached trademark rules with the unlawful publication of certain images containing Haas trademarks for the Italian's "personal financial gain and illicit profit".
A submission to the Central District Court of California further stated that “Haas Automation never consented to Steiner’s use of the Haas Automation Trademarks or the Haas Automation Trade Dress" within the book.
Haas Automation further contended the book was being sold, in print and online, "in violation of [the company's] exclusive intellectual property rights", and that of January this year it had "generated revenue of at least $4,500,000”. Substantial damages were being sought.
But in court documents seen by RacingNews365, United States District Court Judge, the Honourable André Birotte Jr., notes that the book "details Steiner’s experience as Team Principal of the Haas F1 Team.
"That necessarily requires him to mention the Haas name. As many sports biographies do, it includes photographs of the season, which will undoubtedly show the Haas marks."
Viewed by others:
Nothing explicity misleading
Birotte Jr. further states that neither Steiner nor the publisher "use the Haas marks as a source-identifying mark".
He added: "The use of the Haas marks is artistically relevant to the book. The book recounts Steiner’s experiences as Team Principal of the Haas F1 Team during the 2022 season.
"Using photos that include the Haas Marks is an artistic choice to provide additional context about the 2022 season with the Haas F1 Team."
Additionally, there is nothing to suggest the book is 'explicitly misleading'. The Judge stated "there is no explicit indication, overt claim, or explicit misstatement that the 'source of the work' is Haas Automation.
"While there’s an argument the photo on the cover implicitly suggests endorsement or sponsorship, there is no explicitly misleading statement or suggestion by way of the Haas marks."
In summary, the motion to dismiss the case was granted and the complaint dismissed. However, Steiner's motion to have his attorney's fees paid was denied. Payment is generally only made in 'exceptional circumstances'.
In this instance, the defendants only provided "two paragraphs of support for their motion for attorneys’ fees", and they did "not attempt to explain why this case is exceptional".
The second court case between Steiner and Haas remains ongoing and is not expected to be concluded for another year.
Steiner opted to take action against his former team, claiming unpaid commissions between 2021 and 2023 as well as the use of his likeness in promotional materials and merchandise. Steiner has alleged that Haas violated its employment agreement.
Most read
In this article
Join the conversation!