7th Circuit affirms rare right of publicity loss based on ad

Martin v. Living Essentials, LLC, No. 16-1370, — Fed.Appx.
—- (7th Cir. Jun. 30, 2016)
The Seventh Circuit knocked this affirmance out
quickly—here’s my discussion
of the Jan. 2016 district court decision
Guinness World Records lists Johannes “Ted” Martin as the
open singles champion for consecutive kicks of a football; his record has stood
since 1997. A 2013 Living Essentials energy shot ad featured “an actor who
boasts that in just five hours—all because of 5-hour ENERGY—he disproved
Einstein’s theory of relativity, swam the English Channel twice, found Bigfoot,
and ‘mastered origami while beating the record for Hacky Sack.’ The actor, not
to be mistaken for the 56-year-old Martin, appears to be folding an origami
animal while kicking two footbags, not one.”
Martin contended that the reference to “beating the record”
was a reference to him, and thus an unlawful commercial use of his identity,
also tarnishing his reputation by suggesting that his record stemmed from
performance-enhancing drugs.  The
district court found that the ad was puffery, but Martin argued that he was
bringing a false association/endorsement claim. Citing the execrable White v. Samsung, the court reasoned
that, “With advertising, even a parody of a celebrity can trigger liability;
the critical question is whether consumers are likely to be confused and
believe that the aggrieved party endorses or approves of a product.”
The court of appeals found that Martin’s theory was “not
reasonable.”  “[W]e cannot imagine how
this ad would confuse anyone into thinking that Martin himself endorses 5-hour
ENERGY or that his use of the caffeinated drink explains a record set before
the product came to market.”  (But it’s
plausible that consumers would think that Vanna White endorsed Samsung because
a letter-turning blonde robot appeared in its ads?)  The mention of Hacky Sack was “sandwiched
between obviously absurd achievements.” 
Moreover, “the actor cannot be accused of impersonating Martin, since he
brags of besting, not holding for years, a footbag record,” and Martin didn’t
claim to have achieved his title while creating origami animals.  Furthermore, there was no reason to assume
that it was Martin’s record that had
been beaten; other records exist, including for kicks of two footbags (as shown
in the ad).  Nor did Martin plausibly
allege that he had “the degree of public notoriety necessary to support a claim
under the Lanham Act for false endorsement.” 

Moreover, the district court properly held that Martin
failed to state a claim under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act.  That law broadly defines “identity” to mean
“any attribute … that serves to identify that individual to an ordinary, reasonable
viewer or listener.”  But the phrase “the
record for Hacky Sack” is too ambiguous to call an “attribute” of Martin. “[N]o
reasonable viewer would interpret the commercial for 5-hour ENERGY as referring
to Martin, and because he does not plausibly allege that Living Essentials
invoked his ‘identity’ through the actor’s statement, Martin fails to state a
claim under IRPA.”  Note the implication:
if there were only one prior record holder, another person’s claim to have
beaten that record—even if truthful—would seem to be an appropriation of the
loser’s identity.  That seems …

from Blogger http://ift.tt/29yyZ00

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s