Posts Tagged ‘right of publicity’

August 30 roundup

  • “He coulda been a credenza”: actor’s estate sues over unauthorized “Brando” furniture line [The Daily via Balko] “Motorcycle Gang Sues Over ‘My Boyfriend’s A Hell’s Angel’ T-Shirt” [CBS-LA]
  • EEOC decries employer discrimination on the basis of applicants’ criminal records, recommends curbing background checks [WSJ Law Blog, FastCasual, Hyman, Greenfield] Bill in San Francisco would make felons a protected class in jobs, housing [Fox]
  • Why are Obama officials intent on reducing due process protections for those accused of campus sexual misconduct? [Silverglate, WSJ; Philadelphia Magazine, Samantha Harris/NY Post, Ciamarella, Daily Caller (AAUP objects to plan); links at SAVE] A contrasting view [Roderick Hills, Prawfsblawg]
  • 9th Circuit rejects Bluetooth class action settlement to which Ted Frank’s CCAF objected [Fisher, NLJ, Frank]
  • Lawyer who represents jogger in product liability suit expects to file more actions claiming Skechers sneakers responsible for falls [BLT]
  • Part of a balanced breakfast: “Why the lawsuit against Nutella is bunk” [Nadia Arumugam, Slate] Update: Judge denies motion to dismiss [Russell Jackson]
  • Experts agree it’s OK to nominate Overlawyered for an ABA “100 Best Legal Blogs” slot here.

July 29 roundup

  • Don’t: “Lawyer Disbarred for Verbal Aggression to Pay $9.8M Fine for Hiding Cash Overseas” [Weiss, ABA Journal]
  • Loser-pays might help: “Dropped malpractice lawsuits cost legal system time and money” [Liz Kowalczyk, Boston Globe]
  • “Kim Kardashian and the Problem With ‘Celebrity Likeness’ Lawsuits” [Atlantic Wire]
  • Kim Strassel on the Franken-spun Jamie Leigh Jones case [WSJ]
  • Peggy Little interviews Prof. Lester Brickman (Lawyer Barons) on new Federalist Society podcast;
  • Worse than Wisconsin? “Weaponizing” recusal at the Michigan Supreme Court [Jeff Hadden, Detroit News]
  • New York legislature requires warning labels for sippy cups [NYDN]

June 27 roundup

Claim: NY Yankee top hat logo copies her uncle’s 1936 design

A spokeswoman for the baseball team said there was “no proof” of the woman’s claim. “This is a wonderful country,” said [Alice] McGillion, “where anybody can sue for anything, even when the allegations are over 70 years old.” [NY Post] More: Unbeige (on possible evidence for claim).

Also on sports logo law: “Can I legally get myself tattooed with a pro sports team’s logo?” [Cecil Adams, The Straight Dope]

February 21 roundup

  • Estate of Anna Nicole Smith may sue over opera based on her life [Daily Mail via Surber, other Daily Mail]
  • Maryland Department of Environment: yep, we put tracking devices on Eastern Shore watermen’s boats [Red Maryland]
  • Trial lawyers’ federal contributions went 97% to Dems last cycle [Freddoso, Examiner]
  • $6.5 million for family abuse: unusual sovereign-exposure law costs Washington taxpayers again [PoL]
  • Canadian court: no, we can’t and won’t waive loser-pays for needy litigants who lose cases [Erik Magraken]
  • CPSC considers mandating “SawStop” technology [Crede, background]
  • Gun groups alarmed over ATF pick [Chicago Tribune]
  • Jury blames hit-run death on wheelchair curb cut [four years ago on Overlawyered]

Lindsey Lohan sues E-trade over baby commercial

On Super Bowl Sunday, E-Trade ran one of their annoying talking-baby commercials; this one featured a blond baby named “Lindsay” (the 380th most popular baby-girl name in 2008) that another baby calls a “milk-aholic.” This, says 23-year-old Lindsay Lohan, was a violation of the rights to her “name and characterization”; she’s sued in Nassau County, New York state court, and is asking for $100 million. The advertising agency says Baby Lindsay was named after someone on the ad team. [lawsuit via TMZ; NY Post; Reuters]

Commenter Richard Nieporent reminds us of the similar Spike Lee vs. Spike TV silliness.

Chuck Yeager publicity rights suits, cont’d

The famed test pilot and sound-barrier-breaker continues to obtain courtroom traction for some debatable legal theories: “U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell dashed AT&T’s hopes of avoiding a trial in a decision that inexplicably grants a historic achievement the same legal protection as an artistic work or a consumer product.” [Matthew Heller, On Point News; earlier here and here]