Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
<ul><li>REVIEW </li></ul><ul><li>MARKETING MGMT II </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Right of publicity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Unf...
<ul><li>TRADEMARKS: CREATION </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Inherently distinctive marks (OK) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Fancif...
<ul><li>TRADEMARKS: INFRINGEMENT </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lanham Act 43(a): Prohibits false designation of origin (= trademar...
<ul><li>CREATION OF COPYRIGHT </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Originality: Must have min...
<ul><li>CREATION OF RIGHT </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Common law right of famous individuals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>From...
<ul><li>ELEMENTS OF CLAIM (3) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of a famous person’s identity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Without c...
<ul><li>WHITE V. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fact </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Samsung used a robot that r...
<ul><li>WHITE V. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS </li></ul>
<ul><li>PUBLIC POLICY: PROTECTION V. LIMITS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Why do we protect this right? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul...
<ul><li>LIMITING THE RIGHT: 1 st  AM  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publishing Inc. (2003) </li></ul></ul><ul><...
<ul><li>ETW CORP. V. JIREH PUBLISHING INC. (2003)  </li></ul>
<ul><li>LIMITING THE RIGHT: RIGHT OR PROPERTY? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pirone v. MacMillan, Inc.  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul...
<ul><li>CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Traditional market </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mostly face-to-fa...
<ul><li>DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING: SPALDING V. WILSON  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fact </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Wilson’s ads ...
<ul><li>AMBUSH MARKETING: NHL V. PEPSI  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fact </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Coca-Cola was the offici...
<ul><li>AMBUSH MARKETING: NHL V. PEPSI  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rationale: Lanham Act 43(a) not applicable </li></ul></ul><u...
<ul><li>RIGHT OF PUBLICITY </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Protects famous individual’s persona </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Elements ...
<ul><li>UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE LAW </li></ul><ul><ul><li>False advertising </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Balancing between...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Wk6 1 mktg2

751

Published on

Published in: Education, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
751
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Wk6 1 mktg2"

  1. 1. <ul><li>REVIEW </li></ul><ul><li>MARKETING MGMT II </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Right of publicity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Unfair trade practice </li></ul></ul><ul><li>WRAP-UP </li></ul>
  2. 2. <ul><li>TRADEMARKS: CREATION </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Inherently distinctive marks (OK) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Fanciful </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Arbitrary </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Suggestive </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Descriptive marks: (OK only if 2 nd meaning) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Generic marks (Never) </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. <ul><li>TRADEMARKS: INFRINGEMENT </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lanham Act 43(a): Prohibits false designation of origin (= trademarks) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Likelihood of confusion claim </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>8 factors </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Injunction or $$$ </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Counterfeit  criminal prosecution </li></ul></ul></ul>
  4. 4. <ul><li>CREATION OF COPYRIGHT </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Originality: Must have minimal originality </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Fixation: Must be put into tangible form </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NBA v. Motorola </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sport game itself is not copyrightable </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>But once recorded with labor, copyrightable </li></ul></ul></ul>
  5. 5. <ul><li>CREATION OF RIGHT </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Common law right of famous individuals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>From the concept of invasion of privacy </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Protects commercial value of celebrities’ persona </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>General rule: A celebrity’s name, likeness, or image cannot be used for commercial purpose without consent </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. <ul><li>ELEMENTS OF CLAIM (3) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of a famous person’s identity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Without consent </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To gain a commercial advantage </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. <ul><li>WHITE V. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fact </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Samsung used a robot that resembles Vanna White </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Dressed in a wig, gown & jewelry of P </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The robot was posed next to a Wheel-of-Fortune-like game board </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rule </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Using a likeness of celebrity without consent is a breach of ROP </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ROP extends to “anything that evokes her personality (likeness)” </li></ul></ul></ul>
  8. 8. <ul><li>WHITE V. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS </li></ul>
  9. 9. <ul><li>PUBLIC POLICY: PROTECTION V. LIMITS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Why do we protect this right? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Hard work established their commercial value </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Unauthorized use directly hurts the value </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Limits on right of publicity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>1 st Amendment right (artistic speech) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Personal right or property? (inheritable?) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  10. 10. <ul><li>LIMITING THE RIGHT: 1 st AM </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publishing Inc. (2003) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Fact: A painting of TW’s memorable win at the 1997 Masters (sold thousands of copies) & ETW brought an action for breach of right of publicity </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Rule: Under 1 st AM, an artistic work with significant creative component is protected </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Rationale: Literal depiction < expressive artistic speech </li></ul></ul></ul>
  11. 11. <ul><li>ETW CORP. V. JIREH PUBLISHING INC. (2003) </li></ul>
  12. 12. <ul><li>LIMITING THE RIGHT: RIGHT OR PROPERTY? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pirone v. MacMillan, Inc. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Fact: One of Babe Ruth’s heirs sued calendar publisher for using the baseball legend’s pictures </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Rule: Right of publicity extinguishes at death (right) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Right or property? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>New York: ROP Extinguishes at death </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>California: Up to 70 yrs after death (property) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  13. 13. <ul><li>CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Traditional market </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mostly face-to-face deal </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Caveat emptor”: No remedy (“Let the buyer beware”) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Modern market </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>No face-to-face deal </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Lanham Act: No false designation of TM </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>FTC Act: No unfair or deceptive practice (FTC only) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>State laws: Same as FTC Act (but private action OK) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  14. 14. <ul><li>DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING: SPALDING V. WILSON </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fact </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Wilson’s ads claimed that their golf balls are superior to Spalding’s because of its perfect balance </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Spalding argued it’s false & deceptive: (1) balance is only one factor in putting; (2) lab ≠ green </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rule & rationale </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Advertising claim is legal if not completely misleading </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Balancing between fairness & competition </li></ul></ul></ul>
  15. 15. <ul><li>AMBUSH MARKETING: NHL V. PEPSI </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fact </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Coca-Cola was the official sponsor of NHL </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Pepsi launched promotions tied to Stanley Cup playoffs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Pepsi disclaimed any official status in promotion </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rule </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>No mark used  No infringement under Lanham Act </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Disclaimers were enough to dispel any sponsorship status </li></ul></ul></ul>
  16. 16. <ul><li>AMBUSH MARKETING: NHL V. PEPSI </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rationale: Lanham Act 43(a) not applicable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>***“FALSE DESIGNATION” of origin in connection with goods, services, or their containers*** </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Unfair trade practice law does not provide official sponsors with utmost legal protection </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Balancing competition and fairness </li></ul></ul></ul>
  17. 17. <ul><li>RIGHT OF PUBLICITY </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Protects famous individual’s persona </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Elements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Use of famous person’s name, likeness, or image </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Without consent </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>To gain commercial advantage </li></ul></ul></ul>
  18. 18. <ul><li>UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE LAW </li></ul><ul><ul><li>False advertising </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Balancing between competition and fairness </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Prior substantiation required if claim uses experts or other reliable sources </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ambush marketing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Try to dilute status of official sponsorship </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Hard to expel ambush marketers </li></ul></ul></ul>
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×