## Facts

- Museum Boutique Intercontinental, Ltd. (MBI), a New York company, created and licensed designs incorporating images from famous artworks, including works by Pablo Picasso.
- Pablo Picasso died in 1973; his heirs divided the physical artworks, while reproduction rights remained jointly owned in the Picasso estate (Succession Picasso) under a French-law joint ownership arrangement (*indivision*).
- In 1976, the heirs and a rights-management entity (SPADEM) agreed that SPADEM would administer and exploit the Picasso name, image, and likeness in connection with reproductions of Picasso artwork.
- In 1989, a French court appointed Claude Picasso as administrator of the *indivision*.
- MBI alleged it held valid licensing agreements with Japanese companies for sales of derivative works using Picasso images.
- MBI sued multiple defendants, including Paloma Picasso (an heir), asserting claims arising from alleged interference with MBI’s licensing and related conduct.
- Paloma moved to dismiss all claims against her under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the complaint did not plead facts establishing her personal liability.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged any actionable conduct by Paloma Picasso personally, as distinct from actions attributable to SPADEM or the *indivision* administrator.
2. Whether allegations based largely on Paloma’s status as an heir/co-owner of reproduction rights were sufficient to impose personal liability for alleged licensing-related injuries to MBI.

## Decision

- The court granted Paloma Picasso’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed all claims against her.
- The court held the complaint lacked specific, nonconclusory allegations showing Paloma’s personal participation in the alleged wrongdoing.
- The court treated operational control over reproduction-rights exploitation as residing with SPADEM and the appointed administrator, not with Paloma individually, absent well-pleaded facts to the contrary.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff must plead concrete facts linking an individual defendant to the alleged wrongful acts; conclusory assertions and guilt by association are insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Mere status as an heir, beneficiary, or co-owner of intellectual-property-related rights does not, without specific allegations of personal involvement, create personal liability for actions taken by an administering entity or authorized administrator.
- Where rights are administered through an appointed administrator and/or rights-management entity, allegations must show the individual defendant’s direct acts, misrepresentations, or control sufficient to attribute the challenged conduct to that individual.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Paloma Picasso from the case because the complaint did not plausibly allege that she personally engaged in, directed, or controlled the conduct claimed to have harmed MBI; her heirship and co-ownership interests alone did not support individual liability.


Museum Boutique Intercontinental, Ltd. v. Picasso, 886 F. Supp. 1155 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)