Even the Tiger King Has to Answer to the Law

Joe Exotic Found Guilty of IP Infringement

Joe Exotic and Carole Baskin are names that quickly became well-known household names as their struggles against each other, including a myriad of IP infringement claims, were aired for the world to see in the form of entertainment on Netflix.

Sordid Rivalries and IP Infringement Make Good Entertainment

With families hunkered down at home to avoid the spread of COVID-19, Netflix enjoyed an understandable surge in viewership with many of its new shows going viral.  One 2020 series, in particular, Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem and Madness, became a national phenomenon due to its chronicling of the bizarre and unconventional lives of exotic animal owners. 

While the series boasted a bevy of eccentric characters, the series mainly focused on the rise and fall of self-proclaimed “Tiger King” Joe Maldonado-Passage (a.k.a. Joe Exotic) and the fallout from his ongoing rivalry with Carole Baskin, owner of Big Cat Rescue Corporation.   

If one looks beyond the sordid details of Joe Exotic’s three marriages or the suspicious disappearance of Carole Baskin’s first husband, nestled between all the crazy layers of the show was an intellectual property dispute between Exotic and Baskin.  The fourth episode: “Playing with Fire,” focused on the legal battles between the two, which hinted at claims and counterclaims of IP infringement, including trademarks and copyrights, false advertising, misuse of domain names, and bankruptcy filings.  Peppered throughout the episode are segments from depositions of Joe Exotic, taken by Baskin’s attorney, as well as screenshots of social media sparring between the two. 

Over the years, there have been multiple cases filed by the parties. For a review, you can access some of the most relevant cases filed below. 

Civil Cases

  • Big Cat Rescue Corp. v. Big Cat Rescue Entertainment Group, Inc., et al., 8:11-CV-00209, Complaint filed 01/31/2011

  • Big Cat Rescue Corp. v. Big Cat Rescue Entertainment Group, Inc., et al., 8:11-CV-02014, Complaint filed 09/02/2011

  • Big Cat Rescue Corp. v. Big Cat Rescue Entertainment Group, Inc., et al., 8:12-CV-02381, Complaint filed 10/19/2012

  • Big Cat Rescue Corp. v. G.W. Exotic Animal Memorial Foundation, et al., 5:14-CV-00377, Complaint filed 04/15/2014

  • Big Cat Rescue Corp. v. Shirley M. Schreibvogel, 5:16-CV-00155, Complaint filed 02/18/2016

  • Joseph Maldonado-Passage v. United States Department of Interior, et al., 5:20-CV-00248, Complaint filed 03/17/2020

Criminal/Other Cases

  • Joseph Allen Schreibvogel, 13-11430, Bankruptcy filed 03/29/2013

  • USA v. Joseph Maldonado-Passage, 5:18-CR-00227, Indictment filed 09/05/2018 

Joe Exotic Found Guilty of IP Infringement: Tries to Hide Assets 

Eventually, Baskin won a civil suit filed against Exotic over trademark and copyright infringement, with the judgment totaling approximately one million dollars.  But Exotic apparently chose to avoid payment of the judgment through quit claim deeds of his assets, particularly his zoo, and other creative legal wrangling.  Ultimately, when Baskin’s attorneys tried to seize Exotic’s zoo, Exotic transferred ownership of the zoo to his mother.  In response, Baskin’s attorneys accused Exotic of using his mother to conceal his assets and ultimately filed suit against Exotic’s mother as well, alleging that the move was an illegal transfer of assets.   

While the series ended without resolution of the legal conflict, a federal judgment provided the coda to the story, holding that the zoo was indeed fraudulently transferred to Exotic’s mother in an illegal attempt to avoid payment of the one million IP infringement judgment won by Baskin in civil court over trademark and copyright infringement claims.     

Key Takeaways from Joe Exotic’s and Carole Baskin’s Story and the Attempt to Circumvent IP Infringement Judgment 

While the Tiger King show on Netflix ended without definite resolution, a federal judge has now provided the final chapter of the legal saga between Joe Exotic and Carole Baskin ruling that: 

  • Joe Exotic committed IP infringement;

  • Exotic’s quit claim deed transfer of ownership of his zoo to his mother was indeed an illegal transaction and considered fraudulent because it was a mere attempt to conceal Exotic’s assets to avoid payment of the civil judgment against him; and

  • Exotic must transfer ownership of the zoo to Baskin and have any animals on his zoo removed within 120 days of the holding.

For more insights on Intellectual Property Infringement, see our IP Litigation Services Overview.

You may also be interested in:

Law, Blog, IP LitigationCeles Keene