Leo Burnett Company, Inc

" At the end of the clip, the followers printed words appeared on the screen: "A Definite primary Round Pick," while the voice stated, "It's your m angiotensin-converting enzymey."

General Motors did not procure Jabbar's consent to design his former fig, which he stopped licitly using in 1971, and it did not pay him for this use. The company did adjourn the advertisement when he complained about it. Jabbar then brought suit in the district court alleging violations of the Lanham Act and California's statutory and common lawfulness rights of publicity. At issue in this case was whether Jabbar had attached the chassis and whether the use of this name in the ad could be construed as an endorsement by Jabbar of the Oldsmobile in the ad. GM argued that Jabbar had abandoned the name, "Lew Alcindor," and that GM's use of this name was a nominative fair use, not casing to the protection of the Lanham Act. The district court granted GM's motion for drumhead judgment below both the Lanham Act and state law, belongings that Jabbar abandoned his former name, and therefore the right to protect this name and any other rights that flow from having had that name at one time in the past. Jabbar appealed. The appellate court, reversed the district court, safekeeping that there were material issues of fact for the jury to decide under both the Lanham Act and California law.

The Lanham Act provides that a comment shall be deemed abandoned when either of two events occurs.

First

The 9th Circuit held that GM did not establish a prima facie case of abandonment. The court noted that abandonment had ne'er been applied to a person's name or indistinguishability. The court tell that a person's birth name is an integral part of their identity; it is not bestowed for commercial purposes and is not kept alive by means of commercial use. Consequently, the court held that a person's name cannot be deemed abandoned through the failure of the person to use it, or unfold to use it, commercially. The court said that a person's name has import apart from the commercial realm.

Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. P.J. Rhodes & Co., 769 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1985).

Eastwood v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County, 149 Cal. App. 3d 409, 198 Cal. Rptr. 342 (Cal. App. 1983).

Lanham Act, unconnected sections in Title 15 (1992).

Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988).

Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.