Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrialsummary judgmenttrademarkcorporation
appealtrialsummary judgmenttrademarkcorporation

Related Cases

Rodgers v. Georgia Tech Athletic Ass’n, 166 Ga.App. 156, 303 S.E.2d 467, 11 Ed. Law Rep. 1075
View Case »
Erb v. Iowa State Bd. of Public Instruction, 216 N.W.2d 339
View Case »
California Cent. Ry. Co. v. Hooper, 76 Cal. 404, 18 P. 599
View Case »
Smith v. Organization of Foster Families For Equality and Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 97 S.Ct. 2094, 53 L.Ed.2d 14
View Case »
Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 118 S.Ct. 2196, 141 L.Ed.2d 540, 66 USLW 4601, 8 A.D. Cases 239, 12 NDLR P 227, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5021, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6973, 98 CJ C.A.R. 3268, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 726
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Abdul-Jabbar v. General Motors Corp., 85 F.3d 407

Facts

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, a former basketball star, sued General Motors Corporation (GMC) and its advertising agency for using his former name, Lew Alcindor, in a television commercial without his consent. The commercial aired during the 1993 NCAA men's basketball tournament and referenced Abdul-Jabbar's achievements. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of GMC, concluding that Abdul-Jabbar had abandoned his former name and that GMC's use did not imply endorsement. Abdul-Jabbar appealed the decision.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, a former basketball star, sued General Motors Corporation (GMC) and its advertising agency for using his former name, Lew Alcindor, in a television commercial without his consent. The commercial aired during the 1993 NCAA men's basketball tournament and referenced Abdul-Jabbar's achievements. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of GMC, concluding that Abdul-Jabbar had abandoned his former name and that GMC's use did not imply endorsement. Abdul-Jabbar appealed the decision.

Issue

Did the district court err in granting summary judgment in favor of GMC on the grounds that Abdul-Jabbar abandoned his former name and that GMC's use of that name did not imply endorsement?

Did the district court err in granting summary judgment in favor of GMC on the grounds that Abdul-Jabbar abandoned his former name and that GMC's use of that name did not imply endorsement?

Rule

The Lanham Act protects against unauthorized use of a trademark that may cause confusion regarding endorsement or sponsorship. A claim of abandonment requires proof of nonuse with intent not to resume. Under California law, the right of publicity protects against appropriation of a person's name or likeness for commercial advantage without consent.

The Lanham Act protects against unauthorized use of a trademark that may cause confusion regarding endorsement or sponsorship. A claim of abandonment requires proof of nonuse with intent not to resume. Under California law, the right of publicity protects against appropriation of a person's name or likeness for commercial advantage without consent.

Analysis

The court found that the district court's conclusion of abandonment was incorrect, as a proper name cannot be deemed abandoned throughout a person's life. The use of Abdul-Jabbar's former name in the commercial raised genuine issues of fact regarding implied endorsement and likelihood of confusion, which should be determined by a jury. The court also noted that the right of publicity under California law does not require current use of the name for protection.

The court found that the district court's conclusion of abandonment was incorrect, as a proper name cannot be deemed abandoned throughout a person's life. The use of Abdul-Jabbar's former name in the commercial raised genuine issues of fact regarding implied endorsement and likelihood of confusion, which should be determined by a jury. The court also noted that the right of publicity under California law does not require current use of the name for protection.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's summary judgment and remanded the case for trial, allowing Abdul-Jabbar's claims to proceed.

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's summary judgment and remanded the case for trial, allowing Abdul-Jabbar's claims to proceed.

Who won?

The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Abdul-Jabbar, reversing the summary judgment granted to GMC. The court emphasized that the issues of abandonment and implied endorsement were not suitable for summary judgment and required a jury's determination. This ruling reinstated Abdul-Jabbar's claims under both the Lanham Act and California's right of publicity laws.

The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Abdul-Jabbar, reversing the summary judgment granted to GMC. The court emphasized that the issues of abandonment and implied endorsement were not suitable for summary judgment and required a jury's determination. This ruling reinstated Abdul-Jabbar's claims under both the Lanham Act and California's right of publicity laws.

You must be