Frida Kahlo Corporation v. Romeo Pinedo
Owners of Frida Kahlo trademarks sued a Mexican corporation and Frida Kahlo's grand-niece for tortious interference and declaratory relief after cease-and-desist letters were sent to the plaintiffs' Florida licensees to stop a Miami exhibition. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that Florida's corporate shield doctrine did not protect the individual defendant because the letters expressly stated they were sent on her behalf in her personal capacity, and that allegedly tortious cease-and-desist letters directed into Florida satisfy both the effects test and the traditional minimum-contacts test.
Key facts
- Plaintiffs, owners of Frida Kahlo trademarks, sued a Mexican corporation and Frida Kahlo's grand-niece in Florida federal court for tortious interference and declaratory relief.
- The defendants sent cease-and-desist letters to the plaintiffs' Florida licensees demanding they stop a Miami exhibition of Frida Kahlo-related materials; the letters identified the grand-niece as the principal on whose behalf they were sent.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
This published decision gives Florida litigators a strong tool against nonresident officers and owners who hide behind the corporate shield doctrine: the plain language of the challenged communication controls, and… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.