• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

IN THE SURPEME COURT OF MISSOURI JOHN DOE (TONY TWIST), ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Supreme Court No. SC84856 ) TCI CABLEVISION, etc., et al., ) ) Respondents. ) APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI HONORABLE ROBERT H. DIERKER CIRCUIT JUDGE DIVISION 3 RESPONDENTS’ SUBSTITUTE BRIEF Edwin D. Akers, Jr. #17849 Michael A. Kahn, #35411 Melanie R. King #34465 Peter W. Salsich, III, #44886 Gallop, Johnson & Neuman, L.C. Geoffrey G. Gerber, #47097 101 South Hanley, 16th Floor Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin St. Louis, Missouri 63105 720 Olive Street, Suite 2400 (314) 615-6000 St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 615-6001 (Fax) (314) 345-6000 Attorneys for Respondents Todd McFarlane, (314) 356-6060 (Fax) Todd McFarlane Productions, Inc., Attorneys for Respondent Image TMP International, Inc. and Todd McFarlane Comics, Inc. Entertainment, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS JURISDICTION STATEMENT................................................................................................. 9 STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................................10 ARGUMENT..............................................................................................................................24 I. THE TRIAL COURT’S GRANT OF JNOV SHOULD BE AFFIRMED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MAKE A SUBMISSIBLE CASE IN THAT HE FAILED TO PROVE THAT DEFENDANTS USED HIS NAME AS A SYMBOL OF HIS IDENTITY. (RESPONDS TO PORTION OF PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF POINTS I. A, B & C.) ...................................................................................................28 A. Under Missouri Law, Mere Use Of A Plaintiff’s Name Is Not Actionable; Plaintiff Must Establish That The Defendant Used His Name “As A Symbol Of His Identity.”..................................................................................................................29 B. The JNOV Should Be Affirmed Because Plaintiff Waived His Right To Challenge The Determination In The 1999 Order That, As A Matter Of Law, The Twistelli Character Was Not “Of And Concerning” The Plaintiff.......................31 C. The JNOV Should Be Affirmed Because Plaintiff Admitted That Defendants Used Only The Name “Tony Twist” and Did Not Use His Likeness, Image or Identity...............................................................................................33 D. The JNOV Should Be Affirmed Because The Only Possible Use Of Plaintiff’s Name As A Symbol Of His Identity Is A Constitutionally Protected Use........................................................................................................................................34 II. THE TRIAL COURT’S GRANT OF JNOV SHOULD BE AFFIRMED BECAUSE USE OF THE NAME “TONY TWIST” IN AN EXPRESSIVE WORK OF ART IS PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 8 OF II. THE MISSOURI CONSTITUTION AND THEREFORE NOT ACTIONABLE. (RESPONDS TO PORTION OF PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF POINT I. A.) ............................................35 A. Contrary to Plaintiff’s Unique Reading of New York Times v. Sullivan, the First Amendment Distinguishes Between Comic Books and Portable Toilets...................................................................................................................................36 B. The JNOV Should Be Affirmed Because Defendants’ Use Of The Name “Tony Twist” In An Expressive Work Of Art Is Not A “Commercial Use” Under The Right Of Publicity...........................................................................................41 C. The JNOV Should Be Affirmed Because New York Times V. Sullivan Prevents Public Figures From Using Other Tort Claims To Circumvent Heightened Protections Afforded Publishers In Defamation Cases Based on the Same Publication..........................................................................................................47 1 III. THE JNOV SHOULD BE AFFIRMED BECAUSE A RIGHT OF PUBLICITY AS BROAD AS PLAINTIFF SEEKS WOULD VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.....................50 IV. THE TRIAL COURT’S GRANT OF JNOV SHOULD BE AFFIRMED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANTS DERIVED ANY BENEFIT OR CAUSED HIM ANY HARM FROM THE USE OF HIS NAME. (RESPONDS TO PORTION OF PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF POINTS I. B AND I. C.) ..........51 V. ALTERNATIVELY, THE TRIAL COURT’S GRANT OF A NEW TRIAL SHOULD BE AFFIRMED FOR ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (A) THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; (B) THE VERDICT WAS BASED ENTIRELY ON INCOMPETENT EXPERT TESTIMONY; (C) THE VERDICT FORM IMPROPERLY IMPOSED JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY ON THE DEFENDANTS; (D) THE VERDICT DIRECTING INSTRUCTIONS FAILED TO PROPERLY INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE ELEMENTS OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT OF PUBLICITY CLAIM. (RESPONDS TO PORTION OF PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF POINT II.) ................................................................................................54 A. The Trial Court Correctly Exercised Its Discretion in Granting Defendants a New Trial On the Grounds that the Jury’s Verdict Was Against the Manifest Weight of the Evidence. (Responds to Portion of Plaintiff’s Brief Points II. F.)..........................................................................................................................................56 B. The Trial Court’s Grant Of A New Trial Should Be Affirmed Because The Jury Verdict Was Based Entirely On Incompetent And Inadmissible Expert Testimony............................................................................................................................58 C. The Grant Of A New Trial Should Be Affirmed Because The Verdict Form Improperly Instructed The Jury To Hold Each Defendant Jointly And Severally Liable For Damages Based On A Percentage Of Gross Revenues Of All Of The Other Unrelated Defendants. (Responds to Portion of Plaintiff’s Brief Points II. D.) ..............................................................................................................63 D. The Grant of a New Trial Should be Affirmed Because the Verdict Directing Instructions Failed to Properly Instruct the Jury on the Necessary Elements of Plaintiff’s Right of Publicity Claim. (Responds to Portion of Plaintiff’s Brief Points II. A, B & C.) ..............................................................................67 V. THE TRIAL COURT’S DENIAL OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SHOULD BE AFFIRMED BECAUSE THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF WAS DANGEROUSLY OVERBROAD AND CONSTITUTED AN ILLEGAL PRIOR RESTRAINT OF SPEECH. (RESPONDS TO PORTION OF PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF POINT III.).....................................................................................................................71 A. The Denial Of Injunctive Relief Should Be Affirmed Because The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion And There Was Substantial Evidence To Support Its Decision...........................................................................................................71 2 B. The Denial Of Injunctive Relief Should Be Affirmed Because The Trial Court Correctly Determined That The Relief Sought Was Dangerously Overbroad. ...........................................................................................................................72 C. The Denial Of Injunctive Relief Should Be Affirmed Because The Trial Court Correctly Determined That It Would Constitute An Unconstitutional Prior Restraint.....................................................................................................................73 CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................................75 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.................................................................................................76 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 84.06 ...................................................77 APPENDIX.........................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Abdul-Jabbar v. General Motors Corp., 85 F.3d 407 (9th Cir. 1996) .................................42 Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 66 (1983).............................................45 Cardtoons v. Major League Baseball Players Assoc., 95 F.3d 959, 968-69 (10th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................................... 34, 38, 40, 43 Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, 698 F.2d 831 (6th Cir. 1983) ...........................42 ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publishing, Inc., 99 F. Supp. 2d 829 (N.D. Ohio 2000)........37, 40, 42 Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 194 F.3d 505, 522-24 (4th Cir. 1999).........48 Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 667 (1989)..............43 Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 255 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) .........................passim Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 53-55 (1988)........................................34, 38, 47 Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 450 U.S. 662 (1981) .......................................50 Matthews v. Wozencraft, 15 F.3d 432, 439 (5th Cir. 1994).................................................43 Meeropol v. Nizer, 560 F.2d 1061, 1066 (2d Cir. 1977).......................................................48 Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988)......................................................42 Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).................................................................................73 Nebraska

Load more

  78

Copy Link