The company behind Surfvivor, a trademark for beach-themed products, sued the creators of the reality television show “Survivor” for trademark infringement. Despite the confusion reported by Surfvivor that some entities had in the marketplace, the Federal District Court granted summary judgment in favor of “Survivor” and dismissed the case. The Court found that the marks were not similar enough to cause consumer confusion.
Surfvivor appealed immediately, but its action did not survive for long. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s ruling. The Court of Appeal based its opinion on two strands of thought. First, the Court concluded that no actual confusion existed between the two trademarks. If nearly all of the customers and retailers had no confusion, then “customers were not likely to associate the two products or conclude [they] came from the same source.”
Second, the Court reasoned that Surfvivor did not suffer any damages. For example, no merchants stopped doing business with Surfvivor due to any confusion.
Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 2005 U.S.App.LEXIS 7688 (9th Cir. 2005).
Right of Publicity Does Not Cover the Same Subject Matter as Copyright
A model, June Toney, signed a contract for her photo to be used by Ultra Sheen Supreme Shampoo. The contract ended in November 2005, but Ultra Sheen continued to use Toney’s photo. Toney brought suit under an Illinois right of publicity statute.
The Federal District Court dismissed her suit based on a section of the Federal Copyright Act that preempts state law claims if the subject matter is covered under the Copyright Act itself. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.
But Toney was not through. She petitioned the Court of Appeals for a rehearing and the Court reversed its previous ruling. The Court reasoned that the Illinois statute protects a person’s “identity,” while the Copyright Act applies to creative works that are fixed in a tangible medium. The Court wrote, “Toney’s identity is not fixed in a tangible medium of expression.” The subject matter was not the same, and therefore not covered under the Copyright Act.
Furthermore, the Court found another distinction. The Illinois statute protects the right to control the commercial value of a person’s identity. The Copyright Act, in contrast, protects the right to reproduce and perform works.
The case was remanded to the District Court to proceed on the right of publicity claim.
Toney v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 406 F.3d 905, 2005 U.S.App.LEXIS 7897 (7th Cir. 2005).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular entries
-
" I didn't drink! I was kissing a boy who was drunk! "
-
Now, here's a tactic I've not yet seen in court (not sure this one will work for us guys).
-
According to Computerworld Security, Google has started collecting images of European streets for its Street View feature, but is holding of...
-
Y'know, it's kinda cool that the governor is up on his history, but is contemplating a pardon for Billy the Kid really that importa...
-
The General Assembly has relented and decided to allow us (at least some of us) to have judges again . As of 01 July 2011 we in the 30th wil...
-
With Google's recent launch of Street View in Europe and imminent photographing of Canadian cities, I thought I'd do some quick look...
-
Remind me to close up my er . . . not take up spamming .
-
An entire room dedicated to him at the prosecutor's office and "the alleged scam actually would be his third in a decade operated o...
-
June 14, 2002 WGA UNVEILS NEW LOW BUDGET AGREEMENT The Writers Guild has announced a new agreement for indie films with budgets of $750,000...