Celebrity trademarks

In certain situations, celebrities can trademark themselves.

“[t]rademark law is concerned with protection of the symbols, elements or devices used to identify a product in the marketplace and to prevent confusion as to its source.”
— EMI Catalogue P’ship v. Hill, Holliday, Connors, Cosmopulos Inc., 228 F.3d 56, 63 (2d Cir. 2000).

Name and likeness

The U.S. Supreme Court noted that a trademark can be any “symbol” with “commercial magnetism” (Mishawaka Rubber and Woolen Mfg. Co. v. S.S. Kresge Co., 316 U.S. 203, 205, 62 S. Ct. 1022, 1023, 86 L. Ed. 1381 (1942)). This includes the name and likeness of a celebrity, if it has secondary meaning used to identify something for sale.

“a name may be registered provided that the. . . use of the name is not just to identify the individual but rather to identify goods sold or services rendered by the applicant in commerce.”
— Trademark Appeal Board, Carson, 197 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 554, 555 (T.T.A.B. 1977).

“celebrity has a . . . commercial investment in the ‘drawing power’ of his or her name and face in endorsing products and in marketing a career,”
— Albert Furst von Thurn und Taxis v. Karl Prince von Thurn und Taxis, No. 04-CV-6107 (DAB), 2006 WL 2289847, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2006)

False endorsement

One element of trademark law is protection against what has become known as false endorsement.

“[a]ny person who shall .. use, in connection with any goods or services .. any false description or representation .. shall be liable to a civil action . By any person who believes that he is or is likely to be damaged by the use of any such false description or designation.”
— Landham v. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc., 227 F.3d 619, 626 (6th Cir. 2000).

Lanham Act

U.S. trademark law is known as the Lanham Act (U.S. Code 15), and false endorsement is covered in section 43(a).

“To prevail under §43(a) of the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must show that it has ‘a valid, protectible trademark and that the defendant’s use of a colorable imitation of the trademark is likely to cause confusion among consumers.”
— Washington Speakers Bureau, Inc. v. Leading Authorities, Inc., 33 F.Supp.2d 488, 493 (E.D. Va. 1999).

“[Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act] is an appropriate vehicle for the assertion of claims of falsely implying the endorsement of a product or service by a real person.”
— Waits v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 978 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1992)

“celebrities hold a ‘trademark-like interest in their name, likeness, and persona that may be vindicated through a false endorsement claim’ under Section 43(a).”
Avela v Marilyn Monroe, SD New York 2015

Likelihood of confusion

“[The] crucial determinant [in a false endorsement action is] whether there is any likelihood that an appreciable number of ordinarily prudent purchasers are likely to be misled, or indeed simply confused, as to the source of the goods in question, or are likely to believe that the mark’s owner sponsored, endorsed, or otherwise approved of the defendant’s use of the mark.”
— Naked Cowboy v. CBS, 844 F. Supp. 2d 510, 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

“Evocation of plaintiff’s general persona .. may create a likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act.”
Allen v. National Video, Inc., 610 F.Supp. 612 (D.C.N.Y.1985)

Publicity rights vs trademarks

In the U.S., there is no federal publicity right (just state and common law), but the federal trademark act has been used as a surrogate.

“State publicity right claims protect a plaintiff when the defendant uses the plaintiff’s identity for commercial advantage, without permission. However, [Lanham Act] claims require an additional element — that the use be likely to confuse as to the sponsorship or approval of a defendant’s goods.”
— 9th Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith

Celebrity cases for publicity and false endorsement

1953: Major League baseball players should have a right of publicity under New York law.

“We think that, in addition to and independent of that right of privacy . . ., a man has a right in the publicity value of his photograph, i.e., the right to grant the exclusive privilege of publishing his picture .. [M]any prominent persons .. would feel sorely deprived if they no longer received money for authorizing advertisements. . . . This right of publicity would usually yield them no money unless it could be made the subject of an exclusive grant which barred any other advertisers from using their pictures.”
— Haelen Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 202 F.2d 866, 868 (2d Cir.) cert. denied, 346 U.S. 816, 74 S.Ct. 26, 98 L.Ed. 343 (1953)

“[Athlete has a] right of publicity. .. would usually yield [celebrities] no money unless it could be made the subject of an exclusive grant which barred any other advertiser from using their pictures.”
— Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc, 202 F.2d 866 (2d Cir. 1953)

1968: Dr. Seuss can have false endorsement trademark protection.

“The plaintiff is not required to prove actual palming off. A showing of the likelihood of consumer confusion as to the source of the goods is sufficient.”
— Geisel v. Poynter Products, Inc., 283 F. Supp. 261 (S.D.N.Y. 1968).

1973: Cary Grant right of publicity protects altered pictures (Grant v. Esquire, Inc., 367F. Supp. 876 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)).

1977: Hugo Zacchini and his human cannonball act founded the only U.S. Supreme Court case to discuss (and uphold) a state’s right of privacy law.

“[T]he State’s interest in permitting a ‘right of publicity’ is in protecting the proprietary interest of the individual in his act in part to encourage such entertainment. .. to reap the reward of his endeavors.. so long as he gets the commercial benefit of such publication.”
— Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562, 97 S. Ct. 2849, 53 L. Ed. 2d 965 (1977).

“in ‘right of publicity’ cases the only question is who gets to do the publishing.”
— Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562, 97 S. Ct. 2849, 53 L. Ed. 2d 965 (1977).

1978: Muhammad Ali

“defendants appear not only to be usurping plaintiff’s valuable right of publicity for themselves but may well be inflicting damage upon this marketable reputation”
Ali v. Playgirl, Inc. 447 F.Supp. 723 (1978)

1979: Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders as an image can be a trademark.

“The public’s belief that the mark’s owner sponsored or otherwise approved the use satisfies the confusion requirement.”
— Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema, Ltd., 604 F.2d 200, 204-05 (2d Cir.1979)

1979: Bella Lugosi

“the right to exploit one’s name and likeness is personal to the artist .. [there can be] considerable commercial value in one’s identity.”
— Lugosi v. Universal Pictures

1979: Rudolph Valentino

“The right of publicity derived from public prominence does not confer a shield to ward off caricature, parody and satire. Rather, prominence invites creative comment.”
— Guglielmi v. Spelling-Goldberg Productions (1979) 25 Cal.3d 860, 868 (conc. opn. of Bird, C. J.)

1981: Elvis Presley won trademark protection for his pose.

“even though the ‘Elvis Pose’ identifies the individual performer. . . it also has been used in the advertising and sale of Elvis Presley entertainment services to identify those services.”
— Presley’s Estate v. Russen, 513 F. Supp. 1339, 1364 (D.N.J. 1981)

“a recognized property right, the ‘right of publicity,’ inhered in and was exercised by Elvis Presley in his lifetime, that it was assignable by him and was so assigned, that it survived his death and was capable of further assignment.”
— Factors v Creative Card, 1977.

“The famous have an exclusive legal right during life to control and profit from the commercial use of their name and personality.”
— Memphis Development Foundation v. Factors Etc., Inc., 616 F.2d 956 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 953, 101 S.Ct. 358, 66 L.Ed.2d 217 (1980)

1982: Cher won a trademark false endorsement claim.

“The Lanham Act proscribes any false designation or representation in connection with any goods or services in interstate commerce .. [and] extends to misrepresentations in advertising as well as labelling of products and services in commerce.”
— Cher v. Forum International, Ltd., 213 U.S.P.Q. 96 (C.D.Cal.1982)

1983: Neil Young, Pat Benatar, Judas Priest, Devo, Styx, Iron Maiden (as Bi-Rite Enterprises).

“The right of publicity .. seeks to protect the commercial value acquired by names and likenesses due to investments of time, energy, money, and talent. .. It protects the persona — the public image that makes people want to identify with the object person, and thereby imbues his name or likeness with commercial value marketable to those that seek such identification.”
— Bi‐Rite Enters., Inc. v. Button Master, 555 F. Supp. 1188, 1199 (S.D.N.Y. 1983)

“The right of publicity therefore grants plaintiffs relief where none exists under federal law.”
— Bi‐Rite Enters., Inc. v. Button Master, 555 F. Supp. 1188, 1199 (S.D.N.Y. 1983)

1983: Clint Eastwood won California publicity rights for his “name or likeness” (Eastwood v. Superior Court, 149 Cal.App.3d 409, 198 Cal.Rptr.342 (1983)).

1983: Johnny Carson and his “Here’s Johnny!” introduction.

“the right of privacy and the right of publicity protect fundamentally different interests and must be analyzed separately.”
— Carson v. Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets (698 F.2d 831, 6th Cir. 1983)

“The right of publicity has developed to protect the commercial interest of celebrities in their identities. The theory of the right is that a celebrity’s identity can be valuable in the promotion of products, and the celebrity has an interest that may be protected from the unauthorized commercial exploitation of that identity.”
— Carson v. Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets (698 F.2d 831, 6th Cir. 1983)

“The right of publicity .. is that a celebrity has a protected pecuniary interest in the commercial exploitation of his identity.”
— Carson v. Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets (698 F.2d 831, 6th Cir. 1983)

1985: Woody Allen won trademark status for his “persona” and “portrait” from a look-alike.

“the unauthorized use of a person‘s name or photograph in a manner that creates the false impression that the party has endorsed a product or service in interstate commerce violates the Lanham Act.”
Allen v. National Video, Inc., 610 F.Supp. 612 (D.C.N.Y.1985)

“even if the public does not believe that plaintiff actually appeared in the photograph, it may be led to believe by the intentional reference to plaintiff that he is somehow involved in or approves of their product.”
Allen v. National Video, Inc., 610 F.Supp. 612 (D.C.N.Y.1985)

“Evocation of plaintiff’s general persona .. may create a likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act.”
Allen v. National Video, Inc., 610 F.Supp. 612 (D.C.N.Y.1985)

“To be effective, a disclaimer would have to be bolder and make clear that [the celebrity] in no way endorses [the publisher], its products, or its services.”
Allen v. National Video, Inc., 610 F.Supp. 612 (D.C.N.Y.1985)

“All that is necessary to recover under the Act .. is that a likelihood of confusion exists.”
Allen v. National Video, Inc., 610 F.Supp. 612 (D.C.N.Y.1985)

“A celebrity has a .. commercial investment in the ‘drawing power’ of his or her name and face in endorsing products and in marketing a career. The celebrity‘s investment depends upon the good will of the public, and infringement of the celebrity’s rights also implicates the public’s interest in being free from deception when it relies on a public figure’s endorsement in an advertisement. The underlying purposes of the Lanham Act therefore appear to be implicated in cases of misrepresentations regarding the endorsement of goods and services.”
Allen v. National Video, Inc., 610 F.Supp. 612 (D.C.N.Y.1985)

1988: Bette Midler won a right of publicity in her voice from a sound-alike (Midler v. Ford, 849 F. 2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988)).

1990: The Rolling Stones (Brockum v Blaylock, ED Pa 1990)

1990: Babe Ruth was denied trademark protection for his image.

“It cannot be said that every photograph of Ruth serves [trademark’s] origin-indicating function.”
— Pirone v. MacMillan, Inc., 894 F.2d 579, 583 (2d Cir. 1990).

“an ordinarily prudent purchaser would have no difficulty discerning that these photos are merely the subject matter of the calendar and do not in any way indicate sponsorship.”
— Pirone v. MacMillan, Inc., 894 F.2d 579, 584 (2d Cir. 1990)

“[the likeness] of a human being, unlike a portrait of a fanciful cartoon character, is not inherently ‘distinctive’ in the trademark sense of tending toindicate origin.”
— Pirone v. MacMillan, Inc., 894 F.2d 579, 584 (2d Cir. 1990)

1992: Vanna White won summary trademark protection for her appearance in Wheel of Fortune.

“In cases involving confusion over endorsement by a celebrity plaintiff, ‘mark’ means the celebrity’s persona.”
— White v Samsung, 971 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992), quoting Allen, 1985

1992: Tom Waits won trademark protection for his voice from a sound-alike.

“[Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act] is an appropriate vehicle for the assertion of claims of falsely implying the endorsement of a product or service by a real person.”
— Waits v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 978 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1992)

1993: The Beatles (Apple Corps v ADPR, MD Tenn 1993).

1995: New York Mets players have a right to publicity.

“the fact remains that [defendant] is attempting to cash in on plaintiffs’ skill and renown .. Without plaintiffs’ consent, that is something defendant simply cannot do.”
— Shamsky v. Garan, Inc., 632 N.Y.S.2d 930, 933 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995).

1996: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar won trademark protection for his name (Abdul-Jabbar v. General Motors Corp., 85 F.3d 407, 412 (9th Cir. 1996)).

1998: Three Stooges images on T-shirts are not sufficiently artistic to warrant their own First Amendment protection.

“What the right of publicity holder possesses is not a right of censorship, but a right to prevent others from misappropriating the economic value generated by the celebrity’s fame through the merchandising of the name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness of the celebrity.”
— Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 68 Cal. App. 4th 744 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).

“As is the case with fair use in the area of copyright law, an artist depicting a celebrity must contribute something more than a ‘merely trivial’ variation, [but must create] something recognizably ‘his own’ in order to qualify for [First Amendment] legal protection.”
— Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 68 Cal. App. 4th 744 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998), quoting L. Batlin and Son, Inc. v. Snyder (2d Cir. 1976) 536 F.2d 486, 490)

“when an artist is faced with a right of publicity challenge to his or her work, he or she may raise as affirmative defense that the work is protected by the First Amendment inasmuch as it contains significant transformative elements or that the value of the work does not derive primarily from the celebrity’s fame.”
— Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 68 Cal. App. 4th 744 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).

“[No First Amendement protection for commercial use of images of celebrities with] no significant transformative or creative contribution .. [where] the marketability and economic value .. derives primarily from the fame of the celebrities depicted .. [they require] the consent of the right-of-publicity holder.”
— Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 68 Cal. App. 4th 744 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).

“The silkscreens of Andy Warhol .. have as their subjects the images of such celebrities as Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor, and Elvis Presley. Through distortion and the careful manipulation of context, Warhol was able to convey a message that went beyond the commercial exploitation of celebrity images and became a form of ironic social comment on the dehumanization of celebrity itself. Such expression may well be entitled to First Amendment protection.”
— Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 68 Cal. App. 4th 744 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).

“Furthermore, in determining whether a work is sufficiently transformative, courts may find useful a subsidiary inquiry, particularly in close cases: does the marketability and economic value of the challenged work derive primarily from the fame of the celebrity depicted?”
— Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 68 Cal. App. 4th 744 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).

“the right of publicity may often trump the [free speech] right of advertisers to make use of celebrity figures.
— Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 68 Cal. App. 4th 744 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).

1999: Dustin Hoffman won right of publicity and trademark protection for “unauthorized use of his name and likeness to endorse and promote articles of clothing.”

“The right to use [the celebrity’s] name and likeness is an extremely valuable commodity and privilege .. [partly] because he does not knowingly permit commercial uses of his identity.”
Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 2d 867 (C.D. Cal. 1999)

“The Lanham Act has been frequently invoked in this Circuit where celebrities’ identities have been used without their consent and in a manner which makes it appear that the celebrities are associated with, sponsoring or endorsing commercial activities when, in fact, they are not.”
Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 2d 867 (C.D. Cal. 1999)

“[Trademark violation when publisher uses as celebrity’s] name and likeness in a manner which was likely to confuse consumers as to whether [celebrity] was associated with, sponsored, approved, or endorsed [the publisher].”
Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 2d 867 (C.D. Cal. 1999)

“The First Amendment does not protect the exploitative commercial use of [a celebrity’s] name and likeness.”
Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 2d 867 (C.D. Cal. 1999)

“The use of [celebrity’s] name and likeness .. suggested [celebrity’s] sponsorship and endorsement..”
Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 33 F. Supp. 2d 867 (C.D. Cal. 1999)

2000: William Landham (the North American tracker in Predator).

“A false endorsement claim based on the unauthorized use of a celebrity’s identity . . . alleges the misuse of a trademark . . . such as visual likeness, vocal imitation, or other uniquely distinguishing characteristic, which is likely to confuse consumers as to the plaintiff’s sponsorship or approval of the product. In such a case, the ‘mark’ at issue is the plaintiff’s identity.”
— Landham v. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc., 227 F.3d 619, 626 (6th Cir. 2000).

2000: Princess Diana was denied trademark protection for her likeness (Princess Diana estate v Franklin Mint, 2000.)

“[no] reasonable attorney would have thought a tenable legal argument could be made that Princess Diana used her name or likeness as a trademark.”
— Franklin Mint Co. v. Manatt, Phelps and Phillips, LLP, 109 Cal. Rptr. 3d 143, 174(2010).

2003: Tiger Woods was denied trademark protection for his likeness as First Amendment permits the artist to use, and profit from the use of, the image.

“It is not at all clear that the appearance of Woods’s likeness in artwork prints which display one of his major achievements will reduce the commercial value of his likeness.”
— ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publishing, Sixth Circuit United States Court of Appeals, 2003.

“images and likenesses of Woods are not protectable as a trademark because they do not perform the trademark function of designation. They do not distinguish and identify the source of goods.”
— ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publ’g, Inc., 332 F.3d 915, 922 (6th Cir. 2003).

“as a general rule, a person’s image or likeness cannot function as a trademark”
— ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publ’g, Inc., 332 F.3d 915, 922 (6th Cir. 2003).

2006: Albert Furst von Thurn und Taxis (German prince).

“celebrity has a . . . commercial investment in the ‘drawing power’ of his or her name and face in endorsing products and in marketing a career,”
— Albert Furst von Thurn und Taxis v. Karl Prince von Thurn und Taxis, No. 04-CV-6107 (DAB), 2006 WL 2289847, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2006)

2006: Marilyn Monroe on wine bottles likeness can be trademarked if used consistently.

“plaintiff’s unique, long-standing practice of placing various images of Marilyn Monroe on its wines has created a recognizable trade[mark] specifically limited to the sale of wine.”
— Nova Wines, Inc. v. Adler Fels Winery LLC, 467 F. Supp. 2d 965, 979-83 (N.D. Cal. 2006).

“the use at issue in this case is not simply the use of theMarilyn Monroe image, it is the use of the Marilyn Monroe image on winebottles.
— Nova Wines, Inc. v. Adler Fels Winery LLC, 467 F. Supp. 2d 965, 979-83 (N.D. Cal. 2006).

2009: Jim Brown (athlete) was denied trademark protection for his likeness on First Amendment grounds (Jim Brown v Electronic Arts, 2009).

2004: Beastie Boys won false endorsement v Monster Beverage.

2010: Fred Astaire

The “Fred and Adele Astaire Awards” do not violate trademark as the plaintiff was unable to show “that consumers will be deceived into believing that the late Fred Astaire endorsed defendants’ awards.”
Astaire v. Astaire McKenzie et al., case number 1:10-cv-04305

2012: The Naked Cowboy

“falsely implying the endorsement of a product or service by a real person.”
— Albert v. Apex Fitness, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 1151, 1997 WL 323899 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 13, 1997)

“[The] crucial determinant [in a false endorsement action is] whether there is any likelihood that an appreciable number of ordinarily prudent purchasers are likely to be misled, or indeed simply confused, as to the source of the goods in question, or are likely to believe that the mark’s owner sponsored, endorsed, or otherwise approved of the defendant’s use of the mark.”
— Naked Cowboy v. CBS, 844 F. Supp. 2d 510, 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

2013: Bruce Lee won a summary judgement of trademark false endorsement for images on T-shirts. This case was settled out of court in April 2014.

“the Court finds relevant factors to include: the level of recognition Bruce Lee has among purchasers of AVELA’s t-shirts, the similarity between Bruce Lee’s likeness and the likeness used by AVELA, the level of actual consumer confusion regarding who endorsed the t-shirts, AVELA’s intention in selecting Bruce Lee’s image, the quality of AVELA’s products, and the sophistication of t-shirt purchasers.”
— Bruce Lee v Avela, 2013

“a celebrity may assert a false endorsement claim where the defendant uses the celebrity’s persona without permission to suggest false endorsement or association.”
— Bruce Lee v Avela, 2013

“Defendants thus do not qualify for the fair use defense; the use of Bruce Lee’s likeness and name was intended to sell the t-shirts, not describe them.”
— Bruce Lee v Avela, 2013

“[T]he use of Bruce Lee’s likeness and name was intended to sell the t-shirts, not describe them.”
— Bruce Lee Enterprises, LLC v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 2013 WL 822173 (S.D.N.Y.)

“while use of the photographs themselves may be permitted under the Copyright Act, use of Bruce Lee’s image, likeness, and persona subject Defendants to liability for violating Lee’s right of publicity.”
— Bruce Lee Enterprises, LLC v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 2013 WL 822173 (S.D.N.Y.)

“While the Court agrees that consumers may believe these images to be of Bruce Lee, Plaintiffs have not established that consumers would believe Bruce Lee or his estate endorsed AVELA’s products.”
— Bruce Lee Enterprises, LLC v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 2013 WL 822173 (S.D.N.Y.)

2015: Bob Marley

“Every court to consider the issue has held there is no cognizable trademark in every single photograph ever taken of a famous person.”
Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. v. AVELA, 688 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (D. Nev. 2010)

“[Trademark infringement as publisher] used Marley’s image on t-shirts and other merchandise, in a manner likely to cause confusion as to plaintiffs’ sponsorship or approval of these t-shirts and other merchandise.”
Fifty-Six v AVELA, 2015

“This case presents a question that is familiar in our circuit. When does the use of a celebrity’s likeness or persona in connection with a product constitute false endorsement that is actionable under the Lanham Act.”
Fifty-Six v AVELA, 2015

“I would hold 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.”
Fifty-Six v AVELA, 2015, dissent by Christen

2015: Marilyn Monroe pending, summaray judgement.

“The key distinction between a right of publicity and a false endorsement claim is that the latter requires a showing of consumer confusion.”
AVELA v Monroe estate

“celebrities hold a ‘trademark-like interest in their name, likeness, and persona that may be vindicated through a false endorsement claim’ under Section 43(a).”
Avela v Marilyn Monroe, SD New York 2015

Characters

1980: D.C. Comic book characters were protected by trademark. DC Comics, Inc. v. Filmation Associates, 486 F. Supp. 1273, 1277 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).

1982: E.T. character protected by trademark. Universal City Studios, Inc. v. J.A.R. Sales, Inc., 216 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 679 (C.D. Cal. 1982)

1991: Ferrari was able to stop a defendant from manufacturing aftermarket kits that made non-Ferrari cars look nearly identical to Ferraris. Ferrari S.P.A. v. Roberts, 944 F.2d 1235, 1242 (6th Cir. 1991).

1994: Power Rangers Trade dress characters protected by trademark. Saban Entm’t, Inc. v. 222 World Corp., 865 F. Supp. 1047, 1055 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).

1996: Pebble Beach Golf Course Famous photographs can be trademarked. Pebble Beach Co. v. Tour 18 I, Ltd., 942 F. Supp. 1513 (S.D. Tex. 1996).

Add Your Comment

Comment:

Name:

Email (optional):

Submit your comment: