Covering Your Ads : Advertising & Marketing Lawyer & Attorney : Sheppard Mullin Law Firm : Entertainment, Sports, Publicity

The California Supreme Court will hear oral argument on June 3 in an important “right of publicity” case, Christoff v. Nestle USA Inc. Issues include whether the single publication rule applicable to mass communication-based torts applies to right of publicity claims; whether use of another’s likeness on a product label is a “publication” for purposes of the rule; whether its continuing use on product labels and in various product advertisements constitutes a “republication” for each use giving rise to new causes of action and whether the discovery rule applies to right of publicity claims.

The following article by Guylyn Cummins was originally published in the Los Angeles Daily Journal.  To read the article please click here, or visit the Los Angeles Daily Journal website.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Successful athlete endorsements can enhance consumer recognition of a brand and increase the relative perceived value of the products being endorsed. But securing a high-profile endorsement often requires lengthy negotiation and certainly comes at a high cost of entry. For example, Nike reportedly paid Tiger Woods over twenty million dollars for his endorsement, and Peyton Manning reportedly raked in over thirteen million dollars from endorsement deals with Sprint, MasterCard, Gatorade and Reebok. With the current state of the global economy and an unprecedented contraction in (and internal and external scrutiny of) marketing and advertising budgets, major brands are becoming even more selective about the quantity and quality of the athletes they engage in endorsement deals. Fundamental supply and demand principles have, in turn, given major brands greater leverage in negotiating contracts that give the brand broader rights and greater protections in the event the endorsing athlete’s image suddenly takes a turn for the worse.

The following article by Ben Mulcahy and Gina Reif Ilardi was originally published in the Sports Litigation Alert. To read the article please click here, or visit the Sports Litigation Alert website.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

On Feb. 20, 2009 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a California law banning the sale or rental of “violent video games” to minors and requiring such games to be labeled “18” (the legal age for adults). While this decision may surprise some California lawmakers and parents, its holding is fully consistent with substantial U.S. Supreme Court precedent entitling minors to a signifi cant measure of First Amendment protection, and leaving parents with the duty to supervise “appropriate” content.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link