Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/misappropriation-of-name-or-likeness-104
Timestamp: 2020-07-10 23:26:59
Document Index: 595382148

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3344', '§ 3344', '§ 17200', '§1798', '§ 3344', '§ 3344', '§ 3344', '§ 1114', '§ 1125', '§ 1125', '§ 14330', '§ 17200', '§ 2033', '§3344', '§3344', '§3344', '§ 3344', '§ 3344']

What is the misappropriation of name or likeness?
“California law has long recognized ‘the right to profit from the commercial value of one’s identity as an aspect of the right of publicity.’” Orthopedic Systems, Inc. v. Schlein (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 529, 544.
“What may have originated as a concern for the right to be left alone has become a tool to control the commercial use and, thus, protect the economic value of one’s name....” KNB Ent. v. Matthews (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 362, 366.
The right of publicity distinctly protects an “economic interest” and is personal in nature, such that the owner of the right has the exclusive authority to assign it during his or her lifetime. Timed Out, LLC v. Youabian (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1010
There are two vehicles a plaintiff can use to protect this right: a common law cause of action for commercial misappropriation and a claim under Civil Code Section 3344.
Common Law Cause of Action
“To prove the common law cause of action, the plaintiff must establish:
the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s identity;
resulting injury.”
Orthopedic Systems, 202 Cal.App.4th at 544.
“To prove the statutory remedy, a plaintiff must present evidence of all the elements of the common law cause of action” and must also prove a knowing use by the defendant as well as a direct connection between the alleged use and the commercial purpose.” Id.
Civil Code Section 3344 provides in relevant part:
Any person who knowingly uses another’s name... in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person’s prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof.
Civ. Code, § 3344(a).
Likeness and Defining “Use”
To determine whether a person’s likeness was “used” during the consented-to contract period, courts look to when it was published, since the terms “use” and “publication” have the same meaning under misappropriation of likeness law. See Miller v. Collectors Universe, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 988, 1003-1004 (i.e., “‘[w]hile Section 3344 subjects a person to liability for an unauthorized ‘use,;’ and Section 3425.3 is phrased in terms of a ‘publication or exhibition or utterance,’ the terms are sufficiently similar as to have virtually identical meanings within the context of the question presented.’ ([Ops. Cal. Legis. Counsel, No. 16283 (Nov. 8, 1977) Use of Another’s Likeness, p. A-12 (Legislative Counsel’s Opinion] at p. A-13). Thus, the opinion implicitly equates the word ‘use’ with ‘cause of action,’ and recognizes that in the case of a communication to which the single-publication rule applies, only a single ‘use,’ i.e., a single cause of action, would arise out of a single distribution by publication, exhibition or utterance, no matter the size of the audience…[d]espite the limited weight we accord the 1977 Legislative Counsel’s opinion as an expression of legislative intent, we believe the reasoning contained in the opinion is basically sound”).
Under the single-publication rule, a single edition of a printed item constitutes a single integrated publication. See Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1245 (i.e., “for any single edition of a newspaper or book, there was but a single potential action for a defamatory statement contained in the newspaper or book, no matter how many copies of the newspaper or the book were distributed”). Indeed, “[t]he single publication rule was created to address the problem that arose with the advent of mass communication from the general rule on defamation cases that ‘each time the defamatory statement is communicated to a third person…the statement is said to have been “published,” giving rise to a separate cause of action.” Christoff v. Nestle USA, Inc. (2009) 47 C.4th 468, 477.
Public Figure – Private Figure Distinction
In KNB Enterprises, the court held “[a]lthough the unauthorized appropriation of an obscure plaintiff’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness would not inflict as great an economic injury as would be suffered by a celebrity plaintiff, California’s appropriation statute is not limited to celebrity plaintiffs.” KNB Enterprises, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at 367; see also Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch (2001) 265 F.3d 994, 1002 (finding that plaintiff had stated valid right of publicity claims where a defendant store used the plaintiffs’ names and images in advertisements as “window-dressing to advance the catalog’s surf-theme,” without their permission); Fraley v. Facebook, Inc. (2011) 830 F.Supp.2d 785, 807-808 (stating “although ‘[g]enerally, the greater the fame or notoriety of the identity appropriated, the greater will be the extent of the economic injury suffered... the appropriation of the identity of a relatively unknown person may result in economic injury or may itself create economic value in what was previously valueless’”).
A plaintiff’s commercial exploitation of their name or likeness is not a required element of either right of publicity claim. Orthopedic Systems, Inc. v. Schlein (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 529, 544.
Useful Rulings on Misappropriation of Name or Likeness
EVAN ISRAEL BRENNER VS MIKA JAYMES INC ET AL
CASE NAME: Brenner v. Mika Jaymes, Inc., et al. CASE NO.: BC690971 HEARING DATE: 9/5/18 DEPARTMENT: 37 CALENDAR NO.: 7 FILING DATE: 1/9/18 FSC/TRIAL DATE: None NOTICE: OK SUBJECT: Demurrer to the Complaint and Motion to Strike MOVING PARTY: Defendants Mika Jaymes, Inc. and Mehrad Jahavery[1] OPPOSING PARTY: Plaintiff Evan Israel Brenner on behalf of Mika Jaymes Brenner, a minor The cour...
..hing brand, registered the “Mika Jaymes” trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, purchased the “www.mikajaymes.com” domain name and signed up for related social media pages. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges two causes of action for: (1) right of publicity under Civil Code, § 3344 and (2) common law right of publicity. Defendants now demur to the allegations of the Compl...
M.K. VS. LANGLEY PRODUCTIONS, INC.
SC127415 M.K. v. LANGLEY ET AL. Defendants’ SLAPP Motion is GRANTED as to the 1st and 2nd causes of action for fraud and negligent misrepresentation, 3rd c/a and 4th c/a for misappropriation, the 5th and 6th causes of action for invasion of privacy to the extent based on the physical trespass onto Plaintiff’s property, the 8th c/a to the extent it pleads NIED and the 9th c/a for injunctive relief...
..causes of action. “At the first step, the moving defendant bears the burden of identifying all allegations of protected activity, and the claims for relief supported by them. When relief is sought based on allegations of both protected and unprotected activity, the unprotected activity is disregarded at this stage. If the court determines that relief is sought based on allegations arising from a...
AMBER SIBBETT VS CHRIS CARLO ET AL
Defendants’ Motion to Fix Attorneys’ Fees as Recoverable Costs is GRANTED.In this action Plaintiff Amber Sibbett claims that Defendants, Chris Carlo dba Version-C Models Gallery Collection, and Chris Carlo Photography (collectively, “Carlo”) used her photographs on a website for commercial use without her consent. As such, Plaintiff claims that Defendants invaded her privacy. Carlo contends that t...
..de § 17200 et. seq.). Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on June 9, 2016.Trial was set to commence on June 5, 2018. On May 21, 2018, Plaintiff dismissed the entire action without prejudice.MeritsThe prevailing party in a right of pu...
Al Wakeel vs La Mesa Dodge Inc
Defendant Burger Auto Group, LLC's Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend. Plaintiff alleges that defendant used his personal information – particularly his SSN and drivers' license – in a sales transaction of a vehicle with a third party. The use of the Plaintiff's private information was without Plaintiff's knowledge, consent or permission. According to...
... It is unclear why an injunction is necessary and what restitution is available for any misappropriation of plaintiff's identifying information. Plaintiff appears to base the "unlawful act" to support a B&P cause of action on the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Plaintiff alleges that defendant's conduct in using plaintiff's personal information in another transaction constitutes unfair competition in...
ANICKA HAYWOOD VS MERZ AESTHETICS INC
Case Number: BC575871 ANICKA HAYWOOD VS MERZ AESTHETICS INC Filing Date: 03/18/2015 Case Type: Other Intentional Tort-notPI/WD/PD (General Jurisdiction) 12/21/2016 (1) Demurrers to Third Amended Complaint (TAC) (2) Motion to Strike TAC (3) Joinder in Demurrers and Motions to Strike (4) Conference-Case Management NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND PROCEDURE FOR SUBMISSION WITHOUT HEARING The partie...
..ULING and entered on the date of the hearing; (2) If ALL PARTIES SUBMIT, the Court directs ONE PARTY REPRESENTATIVE to send an email to [email protected], at least one day prior to the hearing date, to advise the Court that ALL PARTIES SUBMIT, also STATING WHICH PARTY WILL GIVE NOTICE, or if NOTICE IS WAIVED; (3) Please refrain from sending individual emails to [email protected] with a req...
CRYSTAL BARBERA VS FERNANDO GONZALEZ
chi hung ho, Plaintiff, vs. dr. robert lin, et al. Defendants. Case No.: BC 689872 Hearing Date: April 11, 2019 Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO BIFURCATE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM AND EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL CONDITION UNTIL SECOND PHASE OF TRIAL Background On January 18, 2018, Plaintiff Chi Hung Ho (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defenda...
..Dr. Lin and also Vision Institute of Southern California dba IQ Laser Vision (“IQ Laser Vision”). Dr. Lin and IQ Laser Vision (jointly, “Defendants”) now move to bifurcate trial with respect to punitive damages, pursuant to Civil Code section 3295, subdivision (d). Defendants also move, pursuant to Civil Code section 3295, subdivision (a) for a protective order precluding Plaintiff from introduc...
Recent Rulings on Misappropriation of Name or Likeness
Joel R. Wohlfeil (16)
Mark C. Kim (7)
Los Angeles County, CA (58)
San Diego County, CA (30)
MJI and Javahery now move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication on all of the following issues: Issue Number 1: The First Cause of Action for Right of Publicity Under Civil Code Section 3344 Has No Merit Because Plaintiff Has Not and Cannot Establish Essential Elements. Issue Number 2: The First Cause of Action for Right of Publicity Under Civil Code Section 3344 Is Barred by The Two-Year Statute of Limitations Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 339.
WELLPARK, INC. VS. TRUONG
Dolezal (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 93, 97 [elements of common law claim]; Civil Code 3344 [elements of statutory claim]. It appears that cross-complainant is trying to allege that cross-defendants opened a bank account in his name without his knowledge. However, that is not what is actually alleged. (Cross-complaint at Para. 74.) The demurrer to the eighth cause of action is sustained in its entirety, with leave to amend. This cause of action is not pled with the specificity required for fraud claims.
ROSEMARY WOODS VS RAZ INVESTMENTS,INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
Slander of Title, Common Law Misappropriation of Likeness, Identity Theft, Declaration of Identity Theft [Civil Code §1798.93], & Invasion of Privacy (11th 12th, 13th, 14th, & 15th COAs) Plaintiff failed to allege facts to establish her causes of action for slander of title, misappropriation of likeness, identity theft, declaration of identity theft, and invasion of privacy against DLD Defendants.
JIN V. LI
Third and fourth causes of action for misappropriation of likeness Jin moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the third cause of action for statutory misappropriation of likeness pursuant to Civil Code § 3344 and the fourth cause of action for common law misappropriation of likeness [invasion of privacy]. “[C]ourts have recognized four distinct forms of tortious invasion of privacy: (1) the commercial appropriation of the plaintiff’s name or likeness (codified in California in 1971 in Civ.
VICTOR BORACHUK, ET AL. VS MICHAEL BURG, ET AL.
Unlike in Moran, here, Defendants moved only to strike two causes of action—the claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and the claim for misappropriation of likeness. In addition to those causes of action, Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200. Therefore, Defendants clearly obtained the goal of their motion—to have two causes of action completely stricken.
KIARA BELEN VS RYAN SEACREST PRODUCTIONS, LLC
Tortious misappropriation of name and likeness requires (1) defendant's use of the plaintiff's identity; (2) appropriation of plaintiff's name or likeness to defendant's advantage; (3) lack of plaintiff’s consent; and (4) resulting injury. (Montana v. San Jose Mercury News (1995) 34 Cal. App. 4th 790, 793.) Plaintiff submitted evidence that her likeness, which was identifiable, was used without her consent to defendants’ advantage, and she suffered an injury.
AONE ENTERTAINMENT LLC VS CHASITY DENELLE JAMES ET AL
Code § 3344, which in relevant part states: Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof
Code, § 3344); (5) misappropriation of common law right of publicity; (6) federal trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114); (7) false designation of origin (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), (d)); (8) federal trademark dilution (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)); (9) state trademark dilution and injury to reputation (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 14330); (10) unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.); (11) common law trademark infringement; and, (12) common law unfair competition.
BELLA ALL NATURAL, INC VS MAYELI ALONSO
Fourth Cause of Action (Misappropriation of Likeness). A. Re: No Cause of Action against Cross-Defendant Bella. A common law misappropriation claim is pleaded by “alleging: ‘(1) the defendant's use of the plaintiff's identity; (2) the appropriation of plaintiff's name or likeness to defendant's advantage, commercially or otherwise; (3) lack of consent; and (4) resulting injury. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Montana v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 790, 793 [40 Cal. Rptr. 2d 639].)
FIKE VS MAI
The Amended Judgment awards Mai judgment in the amount of $50,000.00 against KW on the on the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and awards Mai judgment in the amount of $50,000.00 against Robinson on the on the breach of fiduciary duty and appropriation of likeness causes of action and also awards Mai $200.00 in punitive damages against Robinson. As prevailing party, Mai is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs against KW and Robinson.
The Amended Judgment awards Mai judgment in the amount of $50,000.00 against Robinson on the on the breach of fiduciary duty and appropriation of likeness causes of action and also awards Mai $200.00 in punitive damages against Robinson. As such, Mai, not Robinson, is the prevailing party for purposes of the award of statutory costs. In opposition, Robinson fails to offer any grounds for a finding that Robinson is the prevailing party.
JEANETTE BUERLING VS. LIELLE ARAD
The conduct which Defendants are enjoined and restrained from committing is the use of the name, likeness, or identity of Edelweiss German Bierhaus & Restaurant which would be a violation of Civil Code section 3344, as more specifically defined in CACI Nos. 1803 and 1804A. At this juncture, the court is not prepared to rule on whether the picture on the Defendants' web page (attached as exhibit "A" to the declaration of Jeanette Millio) constitutes a violation which should be enjoined or restrained.
The findings are central to the judgment against Robinson on the causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and appropriation of name or likeness, and to the awards of emotional distress and punitive damages. In opposition Robinson also raises the issue of allocation of Mai's attorney's fees. CCP § 2033.420 "authorizes only those expenses 'incurred in making that proof,' i.e., proving the matters denied by the opposing party" Garcia v. Hyster Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 724, 736–737.
DEL RECORDS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS GERARDO ORTIZ MEDINA, ET AL.
Defendants argue that “Plaintiffs want the Court to stay the entire action, but there is no basis in reason to allow claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, or misappropriation of likeness to stagnate for up to a year while the parties litigate issues relating to the Talent Agencies Act before the Labor Commission.” (Id. at p. 5:10-13.) Defendants assert that Styne v.
AUTRY VS GENTILE
Code §3344 and 3344.1: Pursuant to Civ. Code §3344, any person who knowingly uses another’s name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness, in any manner or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person’s prior consent, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person. (Civ. Code §3344(a)(1).) Civ.
DAVID ELIAS VS PACIFIC COAST UNIVERSITY OF LAW, ET AL.
Misappropriation of Likeness 20. IIED AND NIED 21. “Oppression” 22. Civil Rico On June 13, 2019 the court sustained a demurrer by Defendant Carolyn Olson, an employee of Pacific Coast University (“PCU”) to the entire complaint with leave to amend certain causes of action and without leave to amend as to others. On June 25, 2019 the court sustained the demurrers of other PCU employees mostly without leave to amend, but with an opportunity to amend certain negligence based claims.
JAMES MURTAGH M D VS CLARK BAKER
Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint (“TAC”) on February 18, 2015 against Clark Baker and Office of Medical & Scientific Justice, Inc. (1) IIED; (2) NIED; (3) negligence; (4) defamation; (5) violation of Civil Code section 1798.5; (6) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (8) invasion of privacy; (9) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (10) violation of Civil Code section 3344; (11) unauthorized use of name/likeness; and (12) declaratory relief.
LEANDRO SORICE VS JOHNSON & JOHNSON, LLP, A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.
Code § 3344), but as Defendants know, there are any number of scenarios in which prevailing parties are not awarded their entire fees and costs, such as when a Court determines that the fees requested are unreasonable or when the opposing party files a successful motion to tax costs. Otherwise, why indicate that Plaintiff will be responsible for costs “not reimbursed by defendant or ordered by the Court”?
NATANIA CHETRIT VS JEFFREY ALLEN LEVE
Common Law Invasion of Privacy The four common law privacy torts of public disclosure of private facts, false light, intrusion upon seclusion, and appropriation of name and likeness are separate causes of action with elements that are separate and distinct from a California constitutional invasion of privacy. (See Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v.
Code § 3344(a). However, Plaintiff has not provided their hourly rate or the hours worked on the case, to determine if the amount requested is reasonable.