United States: Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals: Use Of Deceased Celebrity's Image On T-Shirts Constitutes False Endorsement Under Lanham Act

Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 778 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015)

In a recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict in favor of Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. ("Fifty-Six Hope Road"), an entity formed by Bob Marley's children and heirs to exploit Bob Marley's persona, that A.V.E.L.A., Inc. ("A.V.E.L.A.") and other defendants' (together with A.V.E.L.A., "Defendants") unauthorized use of Marley's image on t-shirts and other merchandise constituted false endorsement under Section 43(a) of the U.S. Trademark (Lanham) Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). See Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 778 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015).

This appeal arose from a dispute between, on the one hand, Fifty-Six Hope Road and Zion Rootswear ("Zion," and together with Fifty-Six Hope Road, "Plaintiffs"), holder of an exclusive license from Fifty-Six Hope Road to design, manufacture, and sell t-shirts and other merchandise bearing Marley's image, and on the other, Defendants, entities involved in the sale of unlicensed, competing merchandise bearing images of Marley at Target, Walmart, and other large retail outlets. See id. at 1066. Plaintiffs initially sued Defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on five claims stemming from Defendants' unauthorized use of Marley's likeness: (1) trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, (2) false endorsement under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), (3) common law trademark infringement, (4) unauthorized commercial use of right to publicity under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 597.770 et seq., and (5) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Id. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on the infringement and right of publicity claims, and allowed the remaining claims for false endorsement and interference to proceed to a jury. Id. at 1067.

Following a trial, the jury found in favor of Plaintiffs and against all Defendants on the false endorsement claim, and in favor of Plaintiffs and against only A.V.E.L.A. on the intentional interference claim. The jury awarded $300,000 in compensatory damages for the intentional interference. Following post-trial discovery, the district court entered judgment against Defendants for an additional $800,000 representing their net profits from the false endorsement. The district court further granted Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees in an amount of approximately $1.5 million. See id. at 1067.

Defendants appealed the judgment and the award of profits and attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs cross-appealed on several points, including the grant of summary judgment on the Nevada right of publicity claim and the amount of profits awarded. Id. The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's determinations and the jury's verdict on all points.

The decision is significant for its treatment of the false endorsement claim, so we focus on that issue here.

In upholding the jury's verdict on Plaintiffs' false endorsement claim, the Court first found that that under the law of the Ninth Circuit, there is a cognizable claim under Section 1125(a) for misuse of a celebrity's persona, even when the celebrity is deceased. Id. The panel further found that Plaintiffs introduced sufficient evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that consumers would likely be confused about whether Plaintiffs had sponsored or approved Defendants' Marley products. Id. at 1068-72.

In celebrity cases, as the court noted, eight factors are applied to determine likelihood of confusion: "(1) the level of recognition that the celebrity has among the segment of the society for whom the defendant's product is intended; (2) the relatedness of the fame or success of the celebrity to the defendant's product; (3) the similarity of the likeness used by the defendant to the actual celebrity; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) marketing channels used; (6) likely degree of purchaser care; (7) defendant's intent on selecting the celebrity; and (8) likelihood of expansion of the product lines." Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994, 1007–08 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoted by Fifty-Six Hope Road, 778 F.3d at 1069). The court further noted that "[w]here the plaintiff is not the celebrity himself," as was the case here, "an additional factor becomes relevant: the strength of association between the mark and the plaintiff." Fifty-Six Hope Road, 778 F.3d at 1069.

Reviewing factors 1-7, the panel found that the evidence did not compel a finding contrary to the jury's verdict. See id. at 1069-71. Specifically, the panel noted that sufficient evidence was presented to establish that there was a high level of recognition of Marley's image within Defendants' target market, that Marley's image had long been associated with apparel, indicating that the fame of the celebrity was related to the defendant's product, and that A.V.E.L.A. had used actual photos of Marley, not simply likenesses, on the merchandise in question. Id. at 1069. The panel further credited evidence indicating that the marketing channels were identical, since A.V.E.L.A.'s licensees had sold A.V.E.L.A. Marley products in some of the same stores where Plaintiffs and their licensees sold authorized Marley products, that purchaser care was likely low given the inexpensive nature of the items, and that A.V.E.L.A.'s merchandise was similar to that of Hope Road, implying an intent to associate their products with Plaintiffs. See id. at 1070-71.

With respect to the fifth factor, evidence of actual confusion, the panel reviewed Plaintiffs' consumer confusion survey, which consisted of 509 face-to-face interviews conducted by professional interviewers with individuals in shopping malls. Id. at 1069-70. As part of the survey, interviewers had shown the test group an A.V.E.L.A. t-shirt bearing Bob Marley's image and the control group a t-shirt bearing the image of a different, unrenowned African–American man with dreadlocks. Several questions were put to both groups, including: "Who do you think gave their permission or approval for this particular T-shirt to be made or put out?" 37% of the test group answered: "Bob Marley/the person on the shirt or his heirs, estate, or agents." With the control group, 20% answered the same. See id. at 1070.

Defendants argued on appeal that the survey questions were indefinite, and that a valid false endorsement claim "should have an identifiable person as the putative endorser." Id. at 1070. But, as the panel stated, there was "no precedent showing that it must be a single entity that is falsely attributed as the party that approved the product or that the survey taker must be able to identify the party." Id. Therefore, the panel disregarded Defendants' arguments on the survey, holding that "identifying Marley or whoever holds the rights to his persona in the alternative does not render the survey data useless or irrelevant. Rather, the imprecision of the data merely decreases its probative value." Id.

The panel further found sufficient evidence to support the additional factor of association between the mark and Plaintiffs, which, as the court noted, was particularly important in this case, given that a review of the standard Downing factors primarily supported a finding that Marley himself and not the Fifty-Six Hope Road entity had sponsored or approved Defendants' products. Id. at 1071. Here, however, "Marley sold merchandise bearing his image during his lifetime, and his successors-in-interest have continued to do so, implying that his image served (and continues to serve) a source-identifying function." Id. Thus, the panel held, "the jury was free to infer that the source-identifying function of Marley's persona had not weakened to the extent that there was no likelihood of confusion." Id.

The court likewise was not persuaded by Defendants' argument that the judgment overextended the Lanham Act by creating a federal right of publicity. Defendants claimed that "consumers would always 'associate a deceased celebrity's image with that of his or her estate.'" Id. at 1073. As the court noted, though, federal claims "require an additional element" above and beyond a right of publicity claim: namely, "that the use be likely to confuse as to the sponsorship or approval of a defendant's goods." Id. Moreover, the court observed that Defendants had raised a number of "potentially salient" arguments on appeal. Id. at 1067-68 & n.1. However, given that they had failed to first assert those arguments—which included an aesthetic functionality defense, a Copyright Act defense under Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film, Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), and a First Amendment defense under Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir.1989)—before the district court, Defendants had waived them in their entirety. Id. Thus, the court observed, the outcome of the case was "in part a function of defenses expressly waived by Defendants." Id. at 1073. Since the jury found likelihood of confusion, and Defendants waived so many potentially critical defenses, the panel felt bound to uphold the jury verdict. See id.

Judge Morgan Christen concurred in part and dissented in part, noting in particular that "the narrow holding . . . is dictated by the standard of review on appeal, and by the defenses actually pursued by defendants." Id. at 1083. Focusing on the confusion survey introduced by Plaintiffs, she opined that the answers to the survey question "Who do you think gave their permission or approval for this particular T-shirt to be made or put out?" only indicated that many members of the public held a lay legal opinion that Marley or someone connected with him must have sponsored the shirt. Id. at 1084. As she pointed out, "this lay legal opinion is likely to be held by the majority of survey respondents every time merchandise bears a readily recognizable celebrity image." Id. Ultimately, in her analysis, "[w]ithout a showing that consumers cared whether permission had been given, the second survey question only shows that most consumers share [that opinion]; it does nothing to suggest that the use of Marley's image on the T-shirt runs afoul of the purpose of the Lanham Act." Id. at 1085.

Given these problems of causation, "where a celebrity image is itself the only indication of sponsorship," Judge Christen would have held that "a finding of actual confusion under § 43(a) must be supported by some evidence that the confusion could have had an impact on the consumers' purchasing decisions. Id. Therefore, she would not have given weight to the survey, since it "did not show that consumers might be misled into buying the T-shirt based on whether permission had been given." Id. Since evidence of actual consumer confusion was just one of the Downing factors, though, she still supported upholding the jury verdict on likelihood of confusion. Id.

As the Court observed, the outcome of this case may well have been different had Defendants not waived several key defenses. Nevertheless, the case serves as a reminder that even if a right of publicity claim is not available under state law, the successors of a deceased celebrity may still have a federal remedy under the Lanham Act. This lingering right can create difficult clearance issues for companies that wish to use a deceased celebrity's persona for commercial purposes, particularly where the celebrity's successors are not known. Given the potential recovery of damages, profits, and attorneys' fees, as well as injunctive relief, for violations of the Lanham Act, companies considering whether to use a deceased celebrity's persona should perform due diligence of any potential successors-in-interest and seek the advice of experienced counsel.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions