Opinion ID: 3035537
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: False Endorsement Under the Lanham Act

Text: The Estate alleges that the use of sound samples of Facenda’s voice in “The Making of Madden NFL 06” falsely implied that the Estate had agreed to endorse the video game that is the production’s subject. This false endorsement, they argue, violates § 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act. This provision reads as follows: (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which— (A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the a f f i l i a t i o n , connection, or association of such person with another 11 person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person . . . shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1).3 To prove a violation of § 43(a)(1)(A) in a false endorsement case, a plaintiff must show that: (1) its mark is legally protectable; (2) it owns the mark; and (3) the defendant’s use of the mark to identify its goods or services is likely to create confusion concerning the plaintiff’s sponsorship 3 The phrase “another person” in § 43(a)(1)(A) indicates that “Congress selected language broad enough to encompass a claim by a deceased celebrity’s [e]state or by any celebrity’s assignee.” Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., 24 F. Supp. 2d 1013, 1032 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (explaining that Princess Diana’s estate had stated a cognizable claim for false endorsement under § 43(a)(1)(A) against a manufacturer of jewelry, commemorative plates, sculptures, and dolls featuring the Princess’s likeness). 12 or approval of those goods or services. See Commerce Nat’l Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Commerce Ins. Agency, Inc., 214 F.3d 432, 437 (3d Cir. 2000) (listing the three prongs of a § 43(a) claim). The NFL does not deny that courts broadly interpret the terms “name, symbol, or device” in § 43(a)(1) to include other indicia of identity, such as a person’s voice. See Waits v. FritoLay, Inc., 978 F.2d 1093, 1106–07 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that § 43(a) claims based on voice are cognizable). Nor does the NFL deny that Facenda’s voice is distinctive and generally protectable as an unregistered mark. Thus, the Estate has satisfied the first prong of a § 43(a) claim. The NFL also declines to contest the second prong—that the mark is owned by the Estate. Our case thus focuses on the third prong: whether the NFL’s use of Facenda’s voice was “likely to cause confusion” among consumers by suggesting that Facenda’s Estate has an “affiliation, connection, or association” with EA Sports’s video game implying that the Estate “sponsor[s]” or “approve[s] of” that product. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A). A. The Legal Standard for Likelihood of Confusion in False Endorsement Claims Brought Under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act The NFL contends that the District Court applied the wrong legal standard under § 43(a)(1) to the Estate’s false13 endorsement claim. It also argues that our Constitution’s First Amendment right to free speech prohibited application of the Lanham Act to its television production in this case. Because the NFL’s First Amendment defense presents a threshold issue that would affect how we apply trademark law in this case, we address that argument first. Ultimately rejecting the First Amendment defense, we outline the multi-factor test courts use to evaluate the likelihood of consumer confusion when faced with a false-endorsement claim under § 43(a)(1)(A). Finally, we respond to the NFL’s various disagreements with the District Court’s analysis. The NFL’s primary argument is that the legal standards under § 43(a)(1)(A) and § 43(a)(1)(B) 4 do not differ from each other, which implies that the Estate was required to bring evidence of actual confusion to prove a likelihood of confusion. We reject that argument and thus adopt a trademark analysis similar to the District Court’s. 1. First Amendment Limits on the Lanham Act The NFL argues that its production constitutes informational expression, artistic expression, or both, and is thus protected by the First Amendment. It asks our Court to adopt 4 Subsection 43(a)(1)(B) prohibits the use of another person’s mark that, “in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities.” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B). 14 the balancing test of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Rogers v. Grimaldi, which weighs “the public interest in avoiding consumer confusion” against “the public interest in free expression.” 875 F.2d 994, 999 (2d Cir. 1989). In that case, the dancer and actress Ginger Rogers sued the producers and distributors of “Ginger and Fred,” a film about a pair of Italian dancers nicknamed for Rogers and Fred Astaire. The court rejected Rogers’s false-endorsement claim. Under the Rogers test, the proper balance between trademark law and free expression “will normally not support application of the [Lanham] Act unless the title [1] has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever, or . . . [2] the title explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work.” Id. Because the film’s title (1) had an “ironic” and “ambiguous” meaning related to its subject, id. at 1001, and (2) did not directly state that it depicted Rogers, free-speech concerns outweighed survey evidence that “some members of the public would draw the incorrect inference that Rogers had some involvement with the film,” id. The analysis of Rogers has been adopted by three other Courts of Appeals. See Parks v. LaFace Records, 329 F.3d 437, 451–52 (6th Cir. 2003) (applying Rogers to a song title); Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 902 (9th Cir. 2002) (same); Sugar Busters LLC v. Brennan, 177 F.3d 258, 269 & n.7 (5th Cir. 1999) (adopting Rogers in a case concerning a book title). Soon after announcing the Rogers test, the Second Circuit stated that the test is “generally applicable to Lanham Act claims 15 against works of artistic expression, a category that includes parody.” Cliffs Notes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publ’g Group, 886 F.2d 490, 495 (2d Cir. 1989) (applying Rogers to a parody book cover). But we have identified only one federal appellate case other than Cliffs Notes that applies the Rogers test to something other than the title of a creative work. See ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publ’g, Inc., 332 F.3d 915, 936–37 (6th Cir. 2003) (applying Rogers to a commemorative sports painting of Tiger Woods’s victory at the Masters golf tournament in 1997). But see id. at 943–49 (Clay, J., dissenting) (declining to endorse the application of Rogers in that case and arguing that the majority had applied Rogers in a faulty fashion). The NFL asks us also to adopt Rogers and apply it to the use of “The Making of Madden NFL 06.” Before considering whether either prong of the Rogers test applies, however, we must decide whether the television production is a “work[] of artistic expression,” Cliffs Notes, 886 F.2d at 495, as understood in the context of construing the Lanham Act narrowly to avoid a conflict with the First Amendment, see Rogers, 875 F.2d at 998. Although the District Court did not address the NFL’s First Amendment defense in its opinion,5 the categorization of 5 Nor did it certify the First Amendment question for interlocutory appeal. We may, however, address any issue implicit in the District Court’s order granting summary judgment to the Estate on liability. See NVE, Inc. v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 436 F.3d 182, 196 (3d Cir. 2006). 16 speech is a question of law that we must resolve through independent review of the program. See Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 148 n.7, 150 n.10 (1983) (“[W]e are compelled to examine for ourselves the statements in issue and the circumstances under which they are made to see whether . . . they . . . are of a character which the principles of the First Amendment . . . protect. ” (quotation marks omitted)). The NFL posits that its program, taken as a whole, is a work of artistic expression, and that the producers’ use of the particular sound clips at issue in this case represented an artistic choice. In the NFL’s view, the strong association between Facenda’s voice and the NFL means that the use of his voice conveyed the message that Madden NFL 06 provides an accurate rendering of NFL game play. By applying digital sound effects to make the voice sound computerized and adding a metallic echo, the program’s producers aimed to connect the NFL’s history (symbolized by Facenda’s voice, which narrated much of that history) to a modern video game (symbolized by digital filtering of the voice). The NFL contends that it had the right to choose how to convey those messages, even if it meant using portions of recordings of Facenda’s voice. The NFL argues additionally that its program cannot be mere commercial speech—which is defined as “speech that does no more than propose a commercial transaction,” United States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405, 409 (2001), and is not as protected as artistic expression, id.—because it contains 17 information that also appeared in news accounts of the release of Madden NFL 06. This informational material includes descriptions of the video game’s realism, explanations of the game’s features, and reports of gamers’ and NFL players’ enthusiasm for the new version. In this sense, the NFL argues, its program functions as a documentary explaining how the video game was made and depicting the phenomenon of the game’s popularity. The NFL also argues that, even if the program has promotional aspects (a point which it concedes only for the sake of argument), they are “inextricably intertwined” with the artistic and informational elements, meaning that we must treat the program as “fully protected speech.” Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781, 796, 798 (1988) (applying “exacting First Amendment scrutiny” to a state regulation of charitable solicitation materials); see In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Prods. Liab. Litig., 193 F.3d 781, 793 (3d Cir. 1999) (stating that Riley applies where “speech consists of ‘complex mixtures of commercial and noncommercial elements’ ” (quoting Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 81 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring))). The Estate contends that the program is commercial speech, and we agree. Our Court has “three factors to consider in deciding whether speech is commercial: (1) is the speech an advertisement; (2) does the speech refer to a specific product or service; and (3) does the speaker have an economic motivation 18 for the speech.” U.S. Healthcare, Inc. v. Blue Cross of Greater Phila., 898 F.2d 914, 933 (3d Cir. 1990) (citing Bolger, 463 U.S. at 66–67). “An affirmative answer to all three questions provides ‘strong support’ for the conclusion that the speech is commercial.” Id. (quoting Bolger, 463 U.S. at 67). This inquiry involves making “a ‘ “commonsense distinction between speech proposing a commercial transaction . . . and other varieties of speech.” ’ ” Orthopedic Bone Screw, 193 F.3d at 792 (quoting Bolger, 463 U.S. at 65 (quoting Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n, 436 U.S. 447, 455–56 (1978))). The first factor presents a novel issue, because the program is not a traditional 30- or 60-second television advertisement. But ultimately the question is not close. The Estate’s comparison of the program to a late-night, half-hourlong “infomercial” is apt. Like an infomercial, the program focuses on one product, explaining both how it works and the source of its innovations, all in a positive tone.6 While it does not 6 Jon Albert Levy, an expert witness for the Estate, described the program as “not quite an infomercial” because “[t]here’s no 800 number on it. There’s not a call to action on it.” He therefore described the program as a “documercial,” apparently meaning that it had characteristics of a documentary in addition to characteristics of a traditional television advertisement. Yet those observations do not contradict his conclusion that the program is “a hundred percent promotional.” The production uses informational and documentary techniques for the purpose 19 advertise the game’s price, the program did feature a clock at its ending that displayed the number of days until the video game’s release for sale. Furthermore, the program was only broadcast eight times in a three-day span immediately before the release of the video game to retail stores—much like an advertisement for an upcoming film. The second factor is easily satisfied because the program’s sole subject is Madden NFL 06. The show does not refer to other video games—excepting previous years’ versions of “Madden,” which the program portrays as antiquated. The third factor is satisfied by NFL’s licensing agreement with EA Sports, which gives the NFL a direct financial interest in sales of the video game. 7 Moreover, the video game’s general promotion of NFL-branded football provides an additional indirect financial motivation. In this context, we deem “The Making of Madden NFL 06” to be commercial speech. Although we err on the side of fully protecting speech when confronted with works near the line dividing commercial and noncommercial speech, we do not view “The Making of of promoting the video game, and thus proposes a commercial transaction. 7 The exact amount of royalties that EA Sports paid to the NFL in consideration for the exclusive right to use NFL trademarks and marketing support was redacted from the record. But NFL licensing manager Timothy Langley testified that “the more copies [of Madden NFL 06] that are sold, the more money we would make.” 20 Madden NFL 06” as close to that boundary. Unlike the film title in Rogers, the books in Cliffs Notes, or the painting in ETW, the work accused of trademark infringement in our case aims to promote another creative work, the video game. Even if Rogers should apply beyond titles (an extension undertaken, to our knowledge, in only the two cases mentioned above), we decline to apply it here in a context with that additional degree of separation. Moreover, the artistic and informational messages that the NFL contends the program conveys amount to mere praise for the product, attesting to its realism and popularity. As the District Court noted, “no one in The Making of Madden had a negative thing to say about the game,” 488 F. Supp. 2d at 500, unlike news accounts that mentioned various criticisms. This belies any argument that the program has a documentary purpose. Because we hold that “The Making of Madden NFL 06” is commercial speech rather than artistic expression, we need not reach the issue whether our Court will adopt the Rogers test. We acknowledge that commercial speech does receive some First Amendment protection. See, e.g., United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. at 409; Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557, 561 (1980). Yet the Lanham Act customarily avoids violating the First Amendment, in part by enforcing a trademark only when consumers are likely to be misled or confused by the alleged infringer’s use. See id. at 563 (“[T]here can be no constitutional objection to the suppression of commercial messages that do not accurately inform the public about lawful activity.”); see also 6 J. Thomas McCarthy, 21 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 31:142, at 31-229 (4th ed. 1996 & Supp. 2008) (describing the low level of First Amendment protection for misleading speech); Alex Kozinski, Trademarks Unplugged, 68 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 960, 973 (1993) (“So long as trademark law limits itself to its traditional role of avoiding confusion in the marketplace, there's little likelihood that free expression will be hindered.”). Thus, we reject the NFL’s First Amendment defense and proceed to analyze the Estate’s false-endorsement claim under trademark law without overlaying the balancing test of Rogers. 2. Tailoring the Lapp Factors to False Endorsement Claims The Estate claims that the NFL violated § 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act by falsely implying that Facenda (or, as here, his successor in interest) had endorsed Madden NFL 06. This claim is considered a trademark claim because Facenda’s voice is a distinctive mark, the Estate owns the mark, and “The Making of Madden NFL 06” allegedly creates a likelihood of confusion that Facenda’s Estate has an “affiliation, connection, or association” with the Madden NFL 06 video game implying that the Estate “sponsor[s]” or “approve[s] of” that game. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A). Section 43(a)(1)(A) covers more than just false endorsement claims. In fact, false endorsement claims are rare enough that our Court has not previously announced the legal 22 standard that applies to them. A more typical claim under § 43(a)(1)(A) involves one company accusing another company of using the first company’s unregistered mark. We therefore must determine whether the District Court analyzed the Estate’s Lanham Act claim under a standard suitably tailored to the false endorsement context. Our Court evaluates § 43(a)(1)(A) claims under the tenfactor test outlined in Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460, 463 (3d Cir. 1983) (quoting Scott Paper Co. v. Scott’s Liquid Gold, Inc., 589 F.2d 1225, 1229 (3d Cir. 1978), abrogated on other grounds by Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 287 (1982). We subsequently adapted Lapp slightly to accommodate cases involving either directly competing or noncompeting goods. Applying Lapp, we consider the following ten factors: (1) the degree of similarity between the owner’s mark and the alleged infringing mark; (2) the strength of the owner’s mark; (3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase; 23 (4) the length of time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion arising; (5) the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark; (6) the evidence of actual confusion; (7) whether the goods, competing or not competing, are marketed through the same channels of trade and advertised through the same media; (8) the extent to which the targets of the parties’ sales efforts are the same; (9) the relationship of the goods in the minds of consumers, whether because of the near-identity of the products, the similarity of function, or other factors; [and] (10) other facts suggesting that the consuming public might expect the prior owner to manufacture both products, or expect the prior owner 24 to manufacture a product in the defendant’s market, or expect that the prior owner is likely to expand into the defendant’s market. A & H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc., 237 F.3d 198, 215 (3d Cir. 2000). The Lapp factors allow courts to compare the marks of two competing or non-competing goods. But this makes Lapp an uncomfortable fit in a false-endorsement case like this one. This case presents the question whether the NFL used the Estate’s mark (i.e., Facenda’s voice) in a way that falsely implied that the Estate endorsed a video game. Rather than protecting its mark with respect to a particular product, the Estate seeks to reserve the exclusive right to grant or deny permission to those who wish to use Facenda’s voice to promote unspecified products in the future. To address this disconnect between Lapp and falseendorsement claims, the District Court concluded that under § 43(a)(1)(A) the traditional Lapp factors apply in a modified form specifically crafted for false-endorsement cases by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: 1. the level of recognition that the plaintiff has among the segment of the soc ie ty f or w hom the 25 defendant’s product is intended; 2. the relatedness of the fame or success of the plaintiff to the defendant’s product; 3. the similarity of the likeness used by the defendant to the actual plaintiff; 4. evidence of actual confusion; 5. marketing channels used; 6. likely degree of purchaser care; 7. defendant’s intent [in] selecting the plaintiff; and 8. likelihood of expansion of the product lines. Although these are all factors that are appropriate for consideration in determining the likelihood of confusion, they are not necessarily of equal importance, nor do they necessarily apply to every case. 26 Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994, 1007–08 (9th Cir. 2001). The District Court reasoned that each of the Downing factors corresponds to one or more of the Lapp factors. Facenda, 488 F. Supp. 2d at 510 n.6. The Court linked Downing factor 1 to Lapp factors 2 and 8, Downing factor 2 to Lapp factor 9, Downing factor 3 to Lapp factor 1, Downing factor 4 to Lapp factor 6 (a nearly exact correspondence), Downing factor 7 to Lapp factor 5 (also an especially close correspondence), and Downing factor 8 to Lapp factor 10. Id. The only Lapp factor left unmatched is the fourth, which we address below. We substantially agree with the District Court’s approach to tailoring the Lapp factors in the manner of Downing. We augment the list set out above by noting that Downing factor 5 is analogous to Lapp factor 7, and that Downing factor 6 relates to Lapp factor 3. Also, we modify the fourth factor of Downing by adding the words “and the length of time the defendant employed the allegedly infringing work before any evidence of actual confusion arose.” This accounts for the fourth Lapp factor, which has no corresponding factor in Downing. Otherwise, we hold that the Downing factors retain the substance of Lapp while appropriately tailoring the language to false endorsement claims. Cf. Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Lendingtree, Inc., 425 F.3d 211, 224–26 (3d Cir. 2005) (tailoring the Lapp factors for “nominative use” cases, in which the alleged infringer refers to a competitor’s product in discussing its own product); A & H 27 Sportswear, 237 F.3d at 207 (“Although all of the factors can be useful, the Lanham Act does not require that [the Lapp factors] be followed precisely so long as the relevant comparisons suggested by the test are made.”). In adopting our slightly modified version of Downing, affirming the District Court’s approach in large part, we emphasize that this formulation of the Lapp factors applies only to false endorsement claims. This holding—seeking only to uphold the substance of Lapp as the set of factors for courts to consider when evaluating likelihood of confusion—does not critique any of our Court’s prior precedent in the area of trademark infringement. 3. Distinguishing Between Subsections of Section 43(a)(1) Under the slightly modified Downing test, evidence of actual confusion among consumers about whether Facenda’s Estate had agreed to endorse Madden NFL 06 is one factor to consider among eight. A common way of providing such evidence of actual confusion is to conduct a survey, but the Estate did not conduct one. The District Court held that the lack of survey evidence (or even anecdotal evidence of actual confusion) was “not fatal.” Facenda, 488 F. Supp. 2d at 512. Even though the actual-confusion factor can be important, survey evidence is expensive and difficult to obtain, leading some courts not to penalize plaintiffs for failing to obtain it. Id. at 512–13. 28 Moreover, evidence of actual confusion was especially difficult to obtain in this case because the program aired on NFL Network (a cable network, we note, to which many households do not have access) only eight times. See id. at 513. Weighing all the Downing factors, the District Court held that a likelihood of confusion did exist about whether Facenda’s Estate agreed to endorse Madden NFL 06. Id. The NFL strenuously objects to the District Court’s choice of legal standard under § 43(a)(1)(A) as well as its legal conclusion about whether evidence of actual confusion was required. It argues that subsections (a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B) have the same standard, which distinguishes impliedly false endorsements from expressly false endorsements. It also contends that claims of impliedly false endorsement like the Estate’s—as opposed to, for example, an expressly false endorsement consisting of sound clips of Facenda’s voice digitally stitched together to say “I think you should buy Madden NFL 06”—must be proven with evidence that the program actually confused consumers. At the very least, the NFL argues, the District Court should have required evidence that consumers actually received the implied message. (The NFL distinguishes receipt of a false message from belief in that falsehood.) We reject the NFL’s arguments about the proper legal standard. The Lapp factors apply, modified for false endorsement cases as described above, and no single factor is dispositive. Our Court has made the difference in the standards 29 under (a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B) explicit: Some actions brought under the Lanham Act require proof of actual confusion and others do not. In an action brought under sections 32 and 43(a) of the Lanham Act for trademark infringement, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1) and 1125(a)(1)(A), plaintiff need not provide proof of actual confusion; he need only show likelihood of confusion. In an action brought under another part of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act for false advertising, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), plaintiff need not prove the challenged advertising misled the public if he can show it was literally false. However, if his claim is not that the advertising was false but that it was misleading, he must prove the public was actually misled or confused by it. Fisons Horticulture, Inc. v. Vigoro Indus., Inc., 30 F.3d 466, 472 n.8 (3d Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). For claims brought under subsection (a)(1)(A), only a likelihood of confusion is required. The distinction between impliedly false and expressly false 30 statements that the NFL urges us to apply comes from the jurisprudence under subsection (a)(1)(B). We decline the NFL’s invitation to muddle the two separate bodies of law that have developed under the separate subsections of § 43(a). The statutory text of the two subsections differs; only subsection (a)(1)(A) includes the phrase “likely to cause confusion.” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A); see Facenda, 488 F. Supp. 2d at 507–08. The case law also differs; our Court has long applied the Lapp factors in (a)(1)(A) cases but not in (a)(1)(B) cases. See Facenda, 488 F. Supp. 2d at 508–09. The leading treatise on trademark law explains that plaintiffs could bring false endorsement claims under either (a)(1)(A) or (a)(1)(B). 5 McCarthy on Trademarks § 28.15, at 28-20 (“Both prongs of the post-1989 version of § 43(a) would seem to be implicated in false endorsement cases.”). But that does not mean that plaintiffs must bring claims under both subsections. Nor does it mean that the elements of (a)(1)(A) claims and (a)(1)(B) claims are the same, as the NFL alleges. In fact, (a)(1)(A) requires only a likelihood of confusion whereas claims of impliedly false statements under (a)(1)(B) require showing actual confusion or misleading statements. The NFL cites a number of cases for the proposition that we must require evidence of actual confusion by (or, at a minimum, actual receipt of) the false-endorsement message. All but one of these cases were decided under subsection (a)(1)(B), the false advertising prong of § 43(a). See Novartis Consumer 31 Health, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson–Merck Consumer Pharms. Co., 290 F.3d 578, 586 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting § 43(a)(1)(B) and describing the legal standard for false advertising claims); Warner-Lambert Co. v. Breathasure, Inc., 204 F.3d 87, 91–92 (3d Cir. 2000) (same); Johnson & Johnson–Merck Consumer Pharms. Co. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharms., Inc., 19 F.3d 125, 129 & n.6 (3d Cir. 1994) (same); Sandoz, 902 F.2d at 227 (quoting only § 43(a), not specifying which subsection, but describing the § 43(a) claim as one for false advertising); U.S. Healthcare, 898 F.2d at 921–23 (quoting § 43(a) and both subsections’ predecessors but citing and discussing falseadvertising cases). Only a single opinion from a district court both cites subsection (a)(1)(A) and requires evidence of actual confusion. Seale v. Gramercy Pictures, 964 F. Supp. 918 (E.D. Pa. 1997). That case analyzed a false endorsement claim under subsection (a)(1)(B), the false advertising prong of § 43(a)(1). Yet, when quoting the statutory language at the outset of its analysis, the Court quoted the language of subsection (a)(1)(A) but stated immediately thereafter the standard for “[a] claim for false advertising under the Lanham Act.” Id. at 930 (emphasis added). As we read that case, the District Court in Seale erred (likely inadvertently) by quoting the language of subsection (a)(1)(A) rather than (a)(1)(B) as it apparently intended. But that small passage in Seale forced the District Court here to resolve the apparent conflict between Seale and our Court’s precedent, including Fisons. It reviewed several cases in both the (a)(1)(A) 32 line and the (a)(1)(B) line before deciding, correctly, that Fisons was the correct statement of the law. Facenda, 488 F. Supp. 2d at 505–10. The oversight in Seale also led the NFL to spend much of its opening brief to our Court attempting to blur the distinction between (a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B). We thus reject the NFL’s challenge to the legal standard applied by the District Court. We adhere to the language in Fisons summarizing the difference between the subsections and view the contrary language in Seale,8 which regardless is not binding on our Court, as an oversight in a case that otherwise dealt with false advertising. B. Application to the Estate’s Claim With the legal standard under § 43(a)(1)(A) settled, we turn to the application of that standard to the facts of the Estate’s claim. First, we briefly explain the limited significance of the standard release contract between Facenda and NFL Films, signed shortly before his death. Second, we evaluate whether summary judgment for the Estate on its Lanham-Act falseendorsement claim was appropriate. 8 But as noted below (infra Section VI.C) an earlier decision in the Seale case, 949 F. Supp. 331 (E.D. Pa. 1996), proves especially useful in another context in sparking a framework for analyzing whether federal copyright law preempts a state-based right-of-publicity claim. 33 1. The Standard Release Contract A threshold inquiry is whether the “standard release” contract that Facenda signed serves as a “complete defense” to the Estate’s claims, as the NFL argued in the District Court. The contract states that the NFL can use its recordings featuring Facenda’s voice as it sees fit, “provided, however, such use does not constitute an endorsement of any product or service.” The District Court rejected the NFL’s defense. It concluded that “The Making of Madden NFL 06” is “commercial in nature”—i.e., that it constitutes an endorsement of the video game—and does not fall within the terms of the contract. Id. at 501.9 In interpreting the language of the contract, we would not focus on whether the program as a whole constitutes an endorsement. Instead, we would ask whether the use of Facenda’s voice within the program constitutes an endorsement. Viewed in this light, the District Court’s rationale does not support rejecting the defense. Yet we agree with the Court’s 9 On appeal, the NFL does not emphasize its argument that the release provides a defense. But it continues to dispute the District Court’s characterization of the production as commercial in its briefing to our Court. Because the District Court relied on that characterization to reject the defense, we deem the NFL not to have waived this defense. This does not prejudice the Estate, because nothing turns on the standard release contract, as we explain in this Section. 34 conclusion that the contract does not bar the Estate’s falseendorsement claim. In the contract, Facenda waived his rights with regard to any uses that were not endorsements. But if the Estate succeeds in proving the elements of its false-endorsement claim, such a finding by the District Court will demonstrate that the NFL’s use of Facenda’s voice was an endorsement, falling outside the contract’s waiver clause. On the other hand, if the Estate’s falseendorsement claim were to fail, meaning that the use was not an endorsement, the contract’s waiver would apply to that claim. Thus, what falls inside the Lanham Act’s prohibitions defines what is outside the contract’s waiver. This renders further analysis of the contract as an independent defense moot. The significance of the contract is that Facenda did not waive the right to bring a claim under the Lanham Act for false endorsement. 2. Genuine Issues of Material Fact Remain Applying the eight Downing factors, the District Court concluded that six factors favored the Estate, while only one factor, evidence of actual confusion, favored the NFL. 488 F. Supp. 2d at 510–513. (It held that the sixth factor, likely degree of purchaser care, did not apply. Id. at 513.) On balance, the Court concluded that “The Making of Madden NFL 06” was likely to confuse consumers as to whether the Estate sponsored or approved of the video game. Id. Although the NFL barely 35 addressed the issue in its briefing to our Court, under our de novo standard of review on a grant of summary judgment, we must examine whether the District Court properly awarded summary judgment to the Estate. The parties told the District Court that no more evidence was necessary to decide their cross-motions for summary judgment. Id. at 499 (“[B]oth parties agreed that they had no need of further discovery, and that the Court could resolve all the liability issues on the evidence already before it.”). But “the mere fact that both parties seek summary judgment does not constitute a waiver of a full trial or the right to have the case presented to a jury.” 10A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2720 (3d ed. 1998), at 330–31 (citing Rains v. Cascade Indus., Inc., 402 F.2d 241, 245 (3d Cir. 1968)). Although it might seem to serve principles of judicial economy, parties may not stipulate to forgoing a trial when genuine issues of material fact remain that prevent either side from succeeding on a motion for summary judgment. Genuine disputes over material facts do exist in our case. For example, the NFL denies that it had the intent to profit unjustly from its use of Facenda’s voice in the program. NFL Films executives testified in depositions, for instance, that they thought they had the right to use the sound clips they did—as long as the program was not a commercial. See Facenda, 488 F. Supp. 2d at 499. The NFL Films producers did not see the 36 production as a violation of the standard release contract because of how they perceived its documentary-like aspects. Although we concluded in Section V.A.1 above that the program is commercial speech for First Amendment purposes, that legal conclusion does not dictate the result of a factual inquiry into the NFL’s intent. The District Court appears to have disbelieved the NFL Films executives’ testimony regarding intent. A dim view of deposition testimony that contradicts internal e-mails (that testimony including statements like “The whole show is a ‘making of’ show[,] so all it does it promotes [M]adden,” id. at 497) may have ample justification. But the NFL has a plausible point that the District Court was rejecting contrary evidence and making a credibility judgment, which is disallowed when ruling on a summary judgment motion. See Country Floors, 930 F.2d at 1062; cf. 10B Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2730 (suggesting that summary judgment is often inappropriate when a state of mind, such as intent or knowledge, is an element of a claim). Another issue of disputed fact is whether any consumers actually received the message that Facenda endorsed Madden NFL 06. This falls under the fourth factor of Downing, evidence of actual confusion. The Estate introduced no consumer survey evidence and no anecdotal evidence. Facenda, 488 F. Supp. 2d at 498. But the Estate did produce an expert witness on the issue of consumer confusion—Jon Albert Levy, who “testified that 37 viewers would ‘probably’ believe, mistakenly, that there was an affiliation between Mr. Facenda and the Madden game.” Id. Levy’s expertise centers on providing celebrities and music to appear in advertisements and pricing those appearances. Although he admitted having no experience with consumer surveys, he also testified that he must judge whether an appearance requires permission to determine the price owed to the celebrity or musical artist (i.e., whether that price should be greater than zero). The District Court stated that this Downing factor overwhelmingly favored the NFL. Id. at 512. But that conclusion was the result of weighing competing evidence, which the summary judgment standard forbids. The larger question here is whether the overall weighing of the Downing factors is a question of law or one of fact. “The Lanham Act’s ‘likelihood of confusion’ standard is predominantly factual in nature. Thus, summary judgment is inappropriate when a jury could reasonably conclude that there is a likelihood of confusion.” Downing, 265 F.3d at 1008 (internal citation omitted). The presence of genuine disputes over some of the Downing factors suggests that this fact-intensive inquiry should have been handled at trial. We follow Downing in holding that likelihood of confusion is a question of fact. See, e.g., A&H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc., 166 F.3d 191, 194 (3d Cir. 1999); Dranoff-Perlstein Assocs. v. Sklar, 967 F.2d 852, 862 (3d Cir. 1992). Thus, we vacate the District Court’s grant of 38 summary judgment for the Estate and remand this issue for trial. On remand, the District Court should apply Downing (adding the fourth Lapp factor to its consideration of the fourth Downing factor as described above, see Section V.A.2 supra) to determine whether the NFL’s program was likely to cause confusion among consumers regarding the Estate’s sponsorship or approval of Madden NFL 06.10 10 We note here that while the District Court was correct in applying the Downing factors to the Estate’s Lanham Act claim, it applied two of those factors—the fifth and eighth—in a manner that it is inconsistent with how those factors have been applied in prior cases. First, the Court stated that the fifth factor, marketing channels used, favors the Estate because the program appeared on the NFL Network, the channel “most likely to attract viewers who would recognize John Facenda’s voice as being associated with football.” Facenda, 488 F. Supp. 2d at 512. Yet the usual fifth-factor analysis does not ask about audience recognition (which is the domain of the first Downing factor—level of recognition in the targeted market segment), inquiring instead about whether the defendant used marketing channels in which the plaintiff’s endorsements are likely to appear. See White v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 971 F.2d 1395, 1400 (9th Cir. 1992) (focusing on the extent to which products the plaintiff actually endorsed were marketed through the same channels and media in which the defendant’s alleged unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s likeness occurred). Second, the eighth Downing factor, expansion of product 39