Judge Dierker, who presided over the original case, threw out the judgment stating that the case lacked "credible evidence that McFarlane at any time intended to injure Twist's marketability, to capitalize on the market recognition of the name Tony Twist, or in fact derived any...benefit whatsoever." He added that when McFarlane first used the name Tony Twist, the plaintiff had no market recognition and "was earning precisely zero income from endorsements."

"As I read this judgment, it was plain to me that the judge found the case lacked the credible evidence expected in a lawsuit of this magnitude," McFarlane said, "Mr. Twist with his contingency lawyer spent nothing on this case, while I'm out a half-million dollars and two years of my life defending my name because I knew I was right. Sometimes doing the right thing is the most difficult. I find it amusing that the corporate entities named as defendants in this case took the path of least resistance before the fight was finished."

McFarlane plans to pursue repayment of some costs from Twist.

Throughout the 22-page judgment, Judge Dierker stated that his court had seldom seen less credible evidence, and called the testimony of two of the plaintiff's witnesses "equally unworthy of belief" and "wholly unbelievable." He also noted that "Spawn is a work of fiction," and "there is no resemblance between plaintiff and the comic book Twist whatsoever."

Judge Dierker also states that "the court cannot find a single case, certainly no Missouri case, in which injunctive relief has been granted to prevent the use of a name by a writer or publisher in a work of fiction."

[Posted 11/02/2000]