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

tortplaintiffdefendantpleamotioncivil proceduremotion to dismiss
plaintiffdefendantmotioncivil proceduremotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Hall v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 705 F.3d 1357, 2013-1 Trade Cases P 78,244, 105 U.S.P.Q.2d 1672
View Case »
Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 186 F.3d 1077, 51 U.S.P.Q.2d 1694
View Case »
Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 4792683, 89 U.S.P.Q.2d 1039
View Case »
Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 259, 64 USLW 2465, 1995 Copr.L.Dec. P 27,487, 37 U.S.P.Q.2d 1590, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 517, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 840
View Case »
Leigh v. Warner Bros., Inc., 212 F.3d 1210, 2000 Copr.L.Dec. P 28,087, 54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1865, 28 Media L. Rep. 1961, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 689
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rose v. Triple Crown Nutrition, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 707348, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1222, 35 Media L. Rep. 1545

Facts

On December 28, 2006, Jeremy Rose filed a complaint against Triple Crown Nutrition, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, Pennsylvania, alleging invasion of privacy, misappropriation of commercial value, and a violation of the Lanham Act due to the unauthorized use of a photograph of him. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Rose, a jockey, claimed that the defendant used a photograph of his victory at the Preakness Stakes in advertisements without his consent. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the claims, which the court is now addressing.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff has sufficiently stated claims for invasion of privacy and misappropriation of commercial value.

Whether the plaintiff has sufficiently stated claims for invasion of privacy and misappropriation of commercial value.

Rule

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a motion to dismiss should be granted only if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of the claims. The court must accept all allegations in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. In Pennsylvania, invasion of privacy can occur through appropriation of name or likeness, and a right of publicity claim protects against unauthorized commercial use of a person's identity.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a motion to dismiss should be granted only if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of the claims.

Analysis

The court analyzed the allegations in the complaint, noting that the plaintiff's claims for invasion of privacy and misappropriation of commercial value were valid under Pennsylvania law. The court found that the plaintiff's allegations closely mirrored the examples provided in the Restatement (Second) of Torts regarding invasion of privacy by appropriation. Furthermore, the court recognized that Pennsylvania courts have acknowledged a right of publicity, which protects against unauthorized commercial exploitation of a person's likeness.

The court analyzed the allegations in the complaint, noting that the plaintiff's claims for invasion of privacy and misappropriation of commercial value were valid under Pennsylvania law.

Conclusion

The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, allowing the plaintiff's claims for invasion of privacy and right of publicity to proceed.

The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, allowing the plaintiff's claims for invasion of privacy and right of publicity to proceed.

Who won?

The plaintiff, Jeremy Rose, prevailed in this motion to dismiss as the court found that he had sufficiently stated claims for invasion of privacy and misappropriation of commercial value. The court emphasized that the allegations in the complaint were to be taken as true and that the plaintiff had a valid basis for his claims under Pennsylvania law, particularly regarding the unauthorized use of his likeness for commercial purposes.

The plaintiff, Jeremy Rose, prevailed in this motion to dismiss as the court found that he had sufficiently stated claims for invasion of privacy and misappropriation of commercial value.

You must be