The Complaint (pdf)
The Exhibits (pdf).
Note that Fremantle’s proof of infringement comes from an ad placed in the Austin Chronicle. It’s blurry, it’s in black and white, but it does look like the same font that American Idol uses.
Also interesting, as Gene at IPWatchdog noted, that the Complaint contains Counts I (Federal trademark infringement and unfair competition), II (trademark infringement and unfair competition under Texas law) and IV (trademark dilution under Texas law). Conspicuously absent is Count III, which Gene hypothsized may have been a claim for federal trademark dilution. The questions arise: Was the omission of the federal dilution claim intentional, or an oversight? If it was intentional (perhaps a decision made at the last minute) was it because Fremantle was concerned about a finding that AMERICAN IDOL is not famous, or that something like STRIPPER IDOL does not dilute it? Or did they believe that relief under the Texas law (which appears to require a lower threshold of fame than the Lanham Act) would provide all the remedies they needed (after all, the strip club is not going to offer these services outside of Texas, so if you shut them down in Texas, that wins the case)?
This would be a fun one to follow, although my guess is that the case will be settled quickly and confidentially.