Opinion ID: 2778164
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: basic factual and procedural background

Text: Fort Knox manufactures and sells gun safes and other security products. In the mid-1980s, General Yeager and Thomas James, who founded Fort Knox, met at a Safari Club International (“SCI”) Convention and entered into an oral agreement allowing the use of General Yeager’s name and likeness to promote Fort Knox products in return for free safes for General Yeager and members of his family. The substance of that agreement is now disputed in certain respects, but the parties agree that it could be terminated by General Yeager at any time. Fort Knox began producing advertising materials on the basis of the agreement. It even called a product line the “Yeager safes,” an arrangement it asserts General Yeager also agreed to orally. In the later 1980s, Fort Knox also started purchasing copies of a book written by General Yeager, for him to sign and return to Fort Knox for use in promoting its safes. In 1989, General Yeager toured the Fort Knox facility, staying at the home of Mr. James. For many years, General Yeager -2- did not voice any concerns over how Fort Knox was effectuating their oral agreement. In 2008 or early 2009, however, General Yeager’s current wife, Victoria Yeager, who manages his proprietary rights and commercial endorsements, began inquiring about the agreement between Fort Knox and her husband. Fort Knox asserts that these inquiries led it to be concerned about the potential for difficulties arising over the continuing use of General Yeager’s name and likeness, which it ceased with one exception. That exception was the display of a poster of General Yeager at a SCI Convention in January 2009, attended by General Yeager. This action was commenced two years later. General Yeager’s claims are rooted in two basic allegations: (1) Fort Knox exceeded the terms of the oral agreement, which limited use of his name and likeness to the annual SCI convention, thereby unjustly enriching Fort Knox and depreciating the value of his proprietary rights; and (2) Fort Knox continued to use his name and likeness despite outright termination of the agreement sometime in 2008. Fort Knox moved for summary judgment on the bases of the statute of limitations and laches. The district court chose not to rely on the limitations defense but did agree with Fort Knox that the action was barred by laches.