Opinion ID: 3035537
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The District Court had jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 1121 because of the Estate’s Lanham Act claims. It exercised 2 The Estate’s complaint also included a claim for invasion of privacy under Pennsylvania common law. The Estate effectively abandoned this claim at the summary judgment stage, possibly because, as the District Court stated, Pennsylvania’s right-of-publicity statute subsumed the common-law tort of invasion of privacy. The District Court entered summary judgment for the NFL on this claim and the Estate did not appeal. 8 supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Because our Court has not yet issued an opinion interpreting the Lanham Act in the context of a false-endorsement claim, and because the District Court perceived a conflict between our caselaw (on the general interpretation of § 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act) and a single district-court case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (which dealt with the specific issue of false endorsement), the District Court certified the issue for interlocutory appeal. Facenda v. NFL Films, Inc., No. 06-3128, 2007 WL 1575409, at –3 (E.D. Pa. May 24, 2007). It also certified whether copyright law preempts the Estate’s state-law right-of-publicity claim because the caselaw (across all federal courts of appeals) does not reflect a “consistent line of reasoning.” Id. at . We granted the petition for interlocutory appeal and have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).