MOBILE, Alabama – A rift between Monroe County's most famous resident and its heritage museum has grown deeper with a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by author Harper Lee.

The suit, filed last week in Mobile’s federal court, seeks an order prohibiting Monroe County Heritage Museum Inc. from using the name of Lee’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book, “To Kill a Mockingbird,” to promote its activities or sell merchandise.

Mobile lawyer Clay Rankin, who represents the 87-year-old author, declined to comment.

The suit suggests that the museum has attempted to take advantage of Lee’s declining health, becoming more “brazen” in its trademark violations. The civil complaint alleges that in the past, the museum would “grudgingly” honor Lee’s request to stop using her famous book. The suit cites an example of a cookbook that traded on a fictional character created by Lee.

“Now, though, things are different,” the complaint states. “Ms. Lee suffered a stroke and is in ill health. The Defendant apparently believes that she lacks the desire to police her trademarks, and therefore seeks to take advantage of Ms. Lee’s condition and property.”

Matt Goforth, an attorney for the museum, said he is not aware of a single incident in which Lee previously has asked the museum not to use the book’s name or characters. He said he believes the recent acrimony is the product of “handlers” who have gained influence over Lee’s affairs.

“It’s kind of sad. I don’t think this is what Harper Lee wants,” he said. “The museum doesn’t like to be in this spot. We didn’t start this fight.”

Lee’s novel was an instant success when it debuted in 1960. The book, which chronicles a lawyer’s defense of a black man accused of raping a white woman in the fictional town of Maycomb, has sold more than 30 million copies in English and has been translated into more than 25 other languages.

The suit claims that the museum is a “substantial business” that generated more than $500,000 in revenue in 2011. Goforth describes it as a nonprofit that would be put out of business if Lee’s suit succeeds.

Conflict between the museum and author erupted earlier this year when the museum moved to block Lee from registering her trademark. Lawyers in that case will begin taking sworn testimony and exchanging documents on Oct. 28. That dispute will be decided by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

In May, she sued the son-in-law of her former literary agent in an attempt to re-secure her copyright on the book. She settled that in September.



Last week’s federal lawsuit is the latest salvo in the conflict with the museum.

“The town’s desire to capitalize upon the fame of ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ is unmistakable: Monroeville’s town logo features an image of a mockingbird and the cupola of the Old County Courthouse, which was the setting for the dramatic trial in ‘To Kill A Mockingbird,’” the complaint states.

The suit alleges that the museum falsely proclaims its mission to be history.

“Rather, its primary mission is to trade upon the fictional story, settings and characters that Harper Lee created in ‘To Kill A Mockingbird,’ and Harper Lee’s own renown as one of the nation’s most celebrated authors,” the complaint states.

Goforth flatly denied Lee’s allegations.

“The museum has been doing what it does, which is putting on the play, for 25 years,” said Goforth, adding that it has sold related merchandise for about 20 years. “Every single statement in this complaint is completely false or meritless, and maybe both.”

The suit cities various examples indicating how closely the museum is tied to the book, right down to the website, tokillamockingbird.com.

In a statement, Goforth responded that the museum has been honoring Lee’s legacy for more than two decades.

“Unfortunately for Harper Lee, those handlers are doing nothing but squandering her money with this lawsuit. The Museum is squarely within its rights to carry out its mission as it always has,” he wrote. “Monroe County's history cannot be understood without an understanding of the history and impact of’ To Kill a Mockingbird.’ It is a part of what Monroe County is both as a county and a community.”

The lawsuit alleges the museum’s lawyer demanded a “royalty-free” license in June as a condition for not opposing Lee’s trademark application and then pressured the Reuters news agency into changing its report that the museum was refusing to share its profits with Lee.

Goforth denied that. He stated in a written answer to questions from AL.com that neither he nor the museum ever said Lee was not entitled to share in profits from the sale of merchandise. He stated that Lee never before had asked for a share of the profits and that the museum would gladly have paid a portion of the profits.

Updated at 5:58 p.m. to include additional comments from Goforth.