Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

Naked Cowboy Sues

CBS Ripped Off My Schtick!

2/14/2011 9:45 AM PST BY TMZ STAFF

The famous Naked Cowboy is suing CBS for the shirt off their back ... claiming they violated his trademark by having a naked guy playing a guitar featured on one of their soaps.

In a lawsuit filed today in New York, the Naked Cowboy claims the CBS show "The Bold and the Beautiful" featured a character dressed as a cowboy, wearing only underwear, and playing a guitar -- which he claims is his thing.

According to the suit, CBS promoted that clip on their website and on YouTube with the name "Naked Cowboy" attached to it. The NC also claims CBS purchased advertising on search engines for the term "naked cowboy."

He's suing for trademark infringement, among other things, and asking for $1.5 million in damages.


No Avatar


Teebag has a point.

While playing the guitar in your underwear might not be something you can trademark on its own, it's the sum of all the elements encompassed in his trademark that will make or break a lawsuit. If CBS not only used his "schtick" but used it in conjuction with the name "naked cowboy", he might very well have a worthwhile case because those are two elements of his character's persona. "Borrowing" additional elements such as songs he's been known to play or wearing the same color and style of hat and/or underwear only increase his likelihood of winning.

It isn't necessarily about "owning" the trademark so much as it's about whether or not people might confuse or connect CBS's character with his.

1257 days ago


stupid , go get a life !! ohhhhhhh and a job too !! i need to accept i give a dollar to a guy on time square!! he was asking to buy weed !hahhhahaa

1256 days ago

donna beasely    

i found an interesting video they posted on youtube showing that there were 19,900 uses of the naked cowboy name with the bold and the beautiful video or something like that

1256 days ago


I'm curious to see how the "trademark infringement" part of this case comes out, namely the Google Keywords part.

I was on a jury a couple of years ago where that was the exact case. A company was suing another company for buying keywords on Google and Yahoo that included the first company's name.

They didn't convince us 1) that they had a trademark or 2) that purchasing Google keywords constitutes trademark infringement.

1256 days ago


put on clothes you loser, I remember seeing this guy in NYC in the 90s before he was big and I always thought what a loser he was, I hate this guy so much

1255 days ago

Howard Bradford    

The Feres Doctrine Covers Up Human Experiments!

In 2011 shouldn’t U.S. Service Personnel have the same U.S. Constitutional Rights that rapists and murderers keep?

2002 U.S. Senate Hearing on the Feres Doctrine. [8] The 2002 Hearing’s 127 pages of 19 Testimonials and Submissions for the Record did not address the previously do***ented: 1. Fact that convicted rapists and murderers receive U.S. Constitutional experimentation protection that U.S. Service Personnel DO NOT!! [4] 2. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and U.S. Senate 1994 Reports that recorded “hundreds of thousands” of in-service personnel injured by non-consensual, experiments. [2 & 3] The Senate 1994 Report’s withheld needed for treatment but experiment identifying evidence and the 1994 Court of Veterans Appeals (COVA) related “may not review”. [2 & 5] 3. Not 2002 recognized was that many experiments were in direct disobedience of the Department of Defense (DOD) Secretary’s 1953 Order. [7] The U.S. Supreme Courts 1987 STANLEY case was a Feres Doctrine based approval of a 1958 injurious non-consensual, military experiment. [6] Disobeyed was the 1953 DOD order and for military personnel lost was the U.S. Constitution, Amendment Eight protection given to U.S. Prisoners! [4]

OVERSIGHTS: Starting on page 64 of the 2002 Senate Hearing PDF version, [1] the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE stated that in the 1950 U.S. Supreme Court’s Feres Doctrine decision [8], “The Court relied upon three principal reasons in coming to its decision: (1) The existence and availability of a separate, uniform, comprehensive, no-fault compensation scheme for injured military personnel;” Answering this issue are the millions of service records that were destroyed in a 1973 National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) fire. Followed by Congress’s 1974 Privacy Act that censored experiment verifying witnesses from any surviving and future records and the withheld experimentation evidence of the 1994 U.S. Senate Report. [2] The Report noted, “The Feres Doctrine should not be applied for military personnel who are harmed by inappropriate human experimentation when informed consent has not been given.” Then, “During the last 50 years, hundreds of thousands of military personnel” were subjected to “experiments that were designed to harm”, e.g., their reported biological and chemical agents, radiation exposure, hallucinogenic and investigational drugs, experimental vaccines and behavior modification projects. In 2011 still ignored is this and the Report’s past and present, "III. Findings and conclusions", "K. DOD and DVA have repeatedly failed to provide information and medical followup to those who participate in military research..." and "N. Participation in military research is rarely included in military medical records, making it impossible to support a veteran’s claim for service-connected disabilities from military research.", i.e., the withheld needed for treatment but “experiments that were designed to harm” evidence. In 1994 COVA’s Chief Judge stated the related evidence restricting, "The court may not review the schedule of ratings for disabilities or the policies underlying the schedule." [5] Continued is the underlying policy of using deceived U.S. Service Personnel as human guinea pigs in injurious experiments?

OVERSIGHT CONTINUED: In the “three principal reasons” continuation, the Dept. of Justice reported the Supreme Court’s, “(2) The effect upon military order, discipline, and effectiveness if service member were permitted to sue the government or each other; and, (3) The distinctly federal relationship between the government and members of its armed services, and the corresponding unfairness of permitting service-connected claims to be determined by nonuniform law.” [1], i.e., the application of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, Amendment Eight to U.S. Prisoners but NOT to U.S. Service Personnel?

U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION? Overlooked by many in Congress is their Oath of Office to defend the U.S. Constitution, their “Pledge of Allegiance” “with liberty and justice for all" checks and balances function, their U.S. Constitution Eighth Amendment protection of convicted rapists and murderers (but NOT U.S. Service Personnel) with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ignored, carved in stone over its entrance, “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW”!

HELP: As in the GAO and U.S. Senate’s reported past, these “military research” “incident to service” [2 & 3] activities are conducted under the ongoing secrecy cover of our ‘national interests’, e.g., WWII, Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan. Shouldn’t U.S. Service Personnel and Veterans get back those Constitutional Rights that they die for and convicted rapists and murderers keep? Please hold your members in the U.S. Congress accountable!



[2] December 8, 1994 REPORT 103-97 "Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans' Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century." Hearings Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 103rd Congress 2nd Session.

[3] GAO September 28, 1994 “Human Experimentation Overview on Co1d War Era Programs” T-NSIAD-94-266

[4] U.S. State Dept., "U.S. Report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights July 1994, Article 7 - Freedom from Torture, or Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”


[6] U.S. SUPREME COURT, JUNE 25, 1987, U.S. V. STANLEY , 107 S. CT.. 3054 (VOLUME 483 U.S., SECTION 669, PAGES 699 TO 710). us/483/669/ case.html

[7] Pgs. 343-345: "The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code; Human Rights in Human Experimentation” George J. Annas and Michael A. Grodin (N. Y.: Oxford University Press, 1992).

[8] Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950).

1172 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 1 | 2

Around The Web