It was only a matter of time until the mainstream took exception to the current spate of porn parodies and decided to throw a custard pie at them. And it looks like Will Ryder and his Three Stooges knock off may get hit in the kisser.

Today www.AVN.com reports that Ryder got a cease-and-desist letter from an attorney claiming to represent the rightsholder to all uses of “The Three Stooges,” even though, as Ryder’s attorney Michael Fattorosi pointed out, the only currently-existing registered trademark for “The Three Stooges” is for bottled beer.

[I was under the impression Columbia Pictures still owned the rights until I looked at my set of Three Stooges DVDS and guess what? C3 Entertainment has the trademark.]

On March 26, 2012, Will Ryder Productions received a letter from Robert N. Benjamin, attorney for C3 Entertainment, which according to Benjamin “is the owner of all intellectual property pertaining to The Three Stooges® Brand and the characters known as The Three Stooges comedy team.”

According to C3 Entertainment, Ryder’s production company “is producing a pornographic movie using The Three Stooges Trademark and other proprietary material belonging to C3,” and on behalf of C3, Benjamin is demanding that Ryder “cease and desist such infringement immediately.”

The AVN article goes on to note that Wicked Pictures heard similarly from a mainstream attorney concerning their Rocky Horror Picture Show parody. Wicked Pictures wound up having extensive negotiations with Richard O’Brien, the owner of the rights to all of the music used in The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

While Wicked managed to work out O’Brien’s dispute, director Brad Armstrong’s back-up plan was to release his parody without music, and each time the performers were tempted to burst into song, have Randy Spears’ Riff-Raff character stop them, saying, “We’re not allowed to do that.”

According to the AVN story, attorney Fattorosi replied to Benjamin that, “After review of my client’s production tapes, I can assure you that his movie falls squarely within the definition of parody and is therefore not infringing on any of your client’s intellectual property or the rights contained therein.

“Any attempt to chill my client’s protected free speech will be met with an anti-SLAPP motion,” referring to a motion opposing the type of lawsuit that some corporations or individuals file in order to censor, intimidate or silence a (in this case) movie producer by forcing him to spend time and money defending a lawsuit that the plaintiff actually never expects to win. Hence that lawsuit’s legal name and acronym: “strategic lawsuit against public participation” or “SLAPP.”

Benjamin returned volley with this comment: “You claim on behalf of your client, Will Ryder Productions, that the low budget, clearly pornographic, film your client intends to sell by infringing upon The Three Stooges® Brand is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as a ‘parody.’

“Such a claim of parody has no merit,” Benjamin wrote, citing a California Appeals Court case he’d won, Comedy III Productions v. Saderup.

Fattorosi responded to Benjamin by pointing out that another California Appeals Court case, Roxbury Entertainment v. Penthouse Media Group, and a successor case, Rogers v. Grimaldi, were more on point.

In Roxbury, the plaintiff owned the rights to the ’60s television series Route 66 and related intellectual property, including the “Route 66” brand. However in April, 2008 Penthouse released a hardcore movie titled Route 66, clearly referring to the famous road that crosses almost the entire US.

The movie, directed by Kelly Holland, made no reference to Roxbury’s TV series or that series’ characters. Penthouse won on summary judgment, with the appeals court ruling relying heavily on a previous case, E.S.S. Entertainment 2000 v. Rock Star Videos, which stated that, “defendant video game creator’s modification of plaintiff strip club’s trademark was ‘not explicitly misleading and is thus protected by the First Amendment'[,]” and that therefore, the Lanham Act, which prohibits trademark infringement, trademark dilution and false advertising, didn’t apply.

Fattorosi’s argument is that nobody in his/her right mind is going to mistake Ryder’s Not The Three Stooges XXX hardcore parody for anything to do with The Three Stooges characters or trademarks that C3 may own the rights to. Fattorosi also points out in his letter, C3’s trademark registration application for The Three Stooges brand is still pending in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Fattorosi also cites E.S.S. Entertainment 2000 and another case, Mattel v. MCA Records, which involved Mattel’s Barbie doll toy, as more on point than Comedy III Productions, then concludes, “We request that you carefully review the cited cases and carefully consider your promised course of action. Any attempt by your client to restrict my client’s protected First Amendment rights will be met with swift opposition by way of a motion under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16, and if necessary a Motion for Summary Judgment in the Central District.

“My client will also be seeking all the requisite attorneys’ fees and costs incurred to defend what is obviously a meritless lawsuit by C3 Entertainment, Inc in light of the current case law. Please govern your actions accordingly.”

The overall suspicion is that threats of a lawsuit just happen to coincide with the theater release of the Farrelly Brothers’ The Three Stooges comedy this Friday [April 13th].

In any event, Ryder’s taking precautions with labeling and packaging to make absolutely certain no one will mistake the Farrelly comedy for Ryder’s own very different take.

However Ryder also told AVN, “If we lost this lawsuit, which I don’t think we’ll do, it would basically set the precedent and end parody in porn, so I’d be a footnote to history because I’d be the guy that brought it [parodies] back and the guy who fucking ended it.”