Plaintiff, : Civil Action No
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 2:15-cv-06518-KSH-CLW Document 18 Filed 12/07/15 Page 1 of 45 PageID: 126 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY HARRIS FAULKNER, : HONORABLE KATHARINE S. HAYDEN Plaintiff, : Civil Action No. 15-6518 (KSH)(CLW) - against - : Return Date: December 21, 2015 HASBRO, INC., : (Document Electronically Filed) Defendant. : : ____________________________________________________________ BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF HARRIS FAULKNER IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT HASBRO, INC.’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS ____________________________________________________________ Paul J. Halasz Dori Hanswirth, Esq.* DAY PITNEY LLP Theresa House, Esq.* One Jefferson Road Patsy Wilson, Esq.* Parsippany, NJ 07054-2891 HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP Tel.: (973) 966-6300 875 Third Ave. Fac.: (973) 966-1015 New York, NY 10022 Email: [email protected] Tel.: (212) 918-3000 Fac.: (212) 918-3100 Email: [email protected] *admitted pro hac vice Attorneys for Plaintiff Harris Faulkner Case 2:15-cv-06518-KSH-CLW Document 18 Filed 12/07/15 Page 2 of 45 PageID: 127 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................... 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 6 A. Plaintiff Harris Faulkner and Her Unique, Personal Brand ....................... 6 B. Hasbro Misappropriated Faulkner’s Unique, Personal Brand in Order to Advertise and Market the Harris Faulkner Hamster Doll .......................... 9 C. Procedural History and Hasbro’s Motion .................................................12 ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................12 A. The Unauthorized Use of a Well-Known Person’s Name Is Sufficient to State a Claim for Right of Publicity under New Jersey Law ...................14 B. The Treatises’ Views on “Name-Sameness” Do Not Apply to Recognizable Names or Where a Defendant Has Traded Off of the Value of That Name ............................................................................................22 1. Hasbro Misreads McCarthy and the Restatement, Which in Fact Support Faulkner’s Claim ...................................................................22 2. Hasbro’s Reliance on Non-Authoritative Cases Involving Plaintiffs Without Established Value in Their Names Is Unavailing .................27 C. There Is No Such Thing as a “Minus Factor” Under New Jersey Law ...33 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................39 i Case 2:15-cv-06518-KSH-CLW Document 18 Filed 12/07/15 Page 3 of 45 PageID: 128 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Abdul-Jabbar v. Gen. Motors Corp., 85 F.3d 407 (9th Cir. 1996) .................................................................... 19, 20, 37 Allen v. Gordon, 86 A.D.2d 514, 446 N.Y.S.2d 48 (1st Dep’t 1982), aff’d, 56 N.Y.2d 780, 452 N.Y.S.2d 25 (1982) .................................................................... 30, 31, 33, 39 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ............................................................................................ 12 Bambu Sales, Inc. v. A&M Distrib., No. 87-1055 (AMW), 1988 WL 68923 (D.N.J. Jun. 29, 1988) ......................... 31 Bates v. Cast, 316 P.3d 246 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014) ................................................................. 38 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................... 12, 13 Botts v. New York Times Company, 106 F. App’x 109 (3d Cir. 2004) ...................................................... 27, 28, 29, 39 Canessa v. J. I. Kislak, Inc., 97 N.J. Super. 327 (Ch. Div. 1967) .............................................................. 15, 24 Hart v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 717 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2013) ........................................................................passim Hooker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 551 F. Supp. 1060 (N.D. Ill. 1982) ..................................................................... 38 Howell v. New York Post Co., 81 N.Y.2d 115, 596 N.Y.S.2d 350 (1993) .......................................................... 32 Kerby v. Hal Roach Studios, 53 Cal. App. 2d 207, 127 P.2d 577 (2d Dist. 1942) ........................................... 31 ii Case 2:15-cv-06518-KSH-CLW Document 18 Filed 12/07/15 Page 4 of 45 PageID: 129 LaSalle Nat’l Bank v. First Conn. Holding Grp., LLC., 287 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2002) ............................................................................... 37 Liebholz v. Harriri, No. CIVA 05-5148 DRD, 2006 WL 2023186 (D.N.J. July 12, 2006) ......... 14, 21 Mahan v. Hasbro, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-00188-RBD-GJK (M.D. Fla. filed Feb. 9, 2015) ............................. 4 McFarland v. Miller, 14 F.3d 912 (3d Cir. 1994) ..........................................................................passim Messenger ex rel. Messenger v. Gruner + Jahr Printing & Pub., 94 N.Y.2d 436, 706 N.Y.S.2d 52 (2000) ............................................................ 32 Mitchell v. The Cartoon Network, Civ. No. 15-5668 (D.N.J. Nov. 20, 2015) .......................................................... 23 Palmer v. Schonhorn Enters., Inc., 96 N.J. Super. 72 (Ch. Div. 1967) ...............................................................passim Parks v. LaFace Records, 329 F.3d 437 (6th Cir. 2003) .............................................................................. 20 People on Complaint of Maggio v. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 205 Misc. 818, 130 N.Y.S.2d 514 (N.Y. Magis. Ct. 1954) .................... 32, 33, 39 Presley’s Estate v. Russen, 513 F. Supp. 1339 (D.N.J. 1981) .................................................................. 15, 23 Swacker v. Wright, 154 Misc. 822, 277 N.Y.S. 296 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cnty. 1935) .......................... 38 Tellado v. Time-Life Books, Inc., 643 F. Supp. 904 (D.N.J. 1986) .................................................................... 20, 23 Vanderbilt v. Mitchell, 72 N.J. Eq. 910 (1907) ........................................................................................ 15 White v. Samsung Elecs., 971 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992) ............................................................................ 34 iii Case 2:15-cv-06518-KSH-CLW Document 18 Filed 12/07/15 Page 5 of 45 PageID: 130 STATUTES 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) ................................................................................................. 12 N.Y. Civ. Rts. Law § 50 ..................................................................................... 31, 32 N.Y. Civ. Rts. Law § 51 ..................................................................................... 31, 32 FEDERAL RULES Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ..................................................................................................... 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ............................................................................................ 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 ..................................................................................................... 12 OTHER AUTHORITIES Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652C ........................................................ 14, 25, 28 J. Thomas McCarthy, The Rights of Publicity and Privacy § 4:51 (2d ed. 2012) ................................................................................................................... 24 J. Thomas McCarthy, The Rights of Publicity and Privacy § 4:48 (2d ed. 2012) ................................................................................................................... 24 J. Thomas McCarthy, The Rights of Publicity and Privacy § 4:49 (2d ed. 2012) ................................................................................................................... 24 J. Thomas McCarthy, The Rights of Publicity and Privacy § 3:18 (2d ed. 2012) ................................................................................................................... 37 iv Case 2:15-cv-06518-KSH-CLW Document 18 Filed 12/07/15 Page 6 of 45 PageID: 131 Plaintiff Harris Faulkner respectfully submits this Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Hasbro, Inc.’s (“Defendant” or “Hasbro”) Partial Motion to Dismiss the Third Cause of Action of the Complaint (“Mot.” or “Motion”). PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Hasbro argues that the “mere use” of a well-known person’s name on a commercial good is insufficient to plead a claim for misappropriation of the right of publicity under New Jersey’s common law. Fortunately for Faulkner (and other public personae with valuable publicity rights), Hasbro’s argument is untethered to the factual allegations of the Complaint, is at odds with established New Jersey law, and misconstrues the (non-authoritative) secondary sources, out-of-state case law, and invented concepts of law that it unpersuasively urges this Court to adopt. Hasbro’s argument should be rejected, and its Motion denied in full. To begin, Hasbro falsely portrays Faulkner’s misappropriation claim as being based “solely” on her name and the statement in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint that “elements of the Harris Faulkner Hamster Doll also bear a physical resemblance to Faulkner’s traditional professional appearance….” This argument, however, takes Faulkner’s 3,600-plus word Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] and disingenuously attempts to cut it down to fewer than 40, with the result of completely ignoring 99 percent of the allegations underlying Faulkner’s claim. When