Truthful identification of performance defeats Illinois publicity claim

Martin v. Wendy’s Int’l, Inc., — Fed.Appx. —-, 2018 WL
1225470, No. 17-2043 (7th Cir. Mar. 9, 2018)
“Guinness World Records lists Johannes “Ted” Martin as the
record holder for consecutive kicks of a footbag.” He sued Wendy’s
International and Guinness for urging families to play together and challenge
world records like Martin’s in a promotion. 
Each promotional kids’ meal, Guinness’s website explained, “will come
with one of six Guinness World Records record-breaking toys” that “provides fun
challenges and a chance for parents and kids to outdo each other for the title
of family’s best.” One of the toys was a footbag. Each kids’ meal also included
a link to a free Guinness World Records eBook, which provided “an exclusive
guide to records” for families to use. 
The words “Guinness World Records” were printed on the footbag and its
packaging. An in-store display showed the footbag, alongside the five other
toys, under the heading “Kids v. Parents” and the logos for Wendy’s and
Guinness. The text on the kids’ meal bag also referred to the six toys as
“record-breaking.” An instructional card with Guinness and Wendy’s logos asked
“Can You Break The Record?” The instructions included: “How many times in a row
can you kick this footbag without it hitting the ground? Back in 1997, Ted
Martin made his world record of 63,326 kicks in a little less than nine hours!”
Martin didn’t plausibly allege false endorsement:
No reasonable consumer would think
that Martin endorsed the footbags. The appearance of “Guinness World Records”
on the footbag might prompt a reasonable consumer to conclude that Guinness—not
Martin—is associated with the footbag. Martin’s name on the instruction card
simply identifies him as the holder of a record, not the endorser of any
product.
Nor was labeling the toys “record-breaking” false
advertising.  It was puffery. “[N]o
reasonable consumer would believe that free toys accompanying kids’ meals to
encourage intra-family play were the same types of items used to set world
records.”
The llinois Right of Publicity Act excludes the “use of an
individual’s name in truthfully identifying the person as the author of a
particular work or program or the performer in a particular performance.”
Martin argued that this exception didn’t apply because he didn’t perform in the
defendants’ promotion. “But Martin’s qualification is not in the statute. [The
statute] allows anyone to identify truthfully the performer of a particular
performance. And that is what the defendants did.”

from Blogger http://ift.tt/2G7tPMf

Advertisements
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