First Assignment (PDF)
White v. Samsung Electronics Am. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit June 7, 1991, Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California ; July 29, 1992, Filed No. 90-55840 Reporter 971 F.2d 1395; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 17205; 23 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1583; 20 Media L. Rep. 1457; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Service 6578; 92 Daily Journal DAR 10519 VANNA WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Opinion SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation, and DAVID DEUTSCH [*1396] OPINION ASSOCIATES, INC., a New York corporation, GOODWIN, Circuit Judge: Defendants-Appellees. This case involves a promotional ″fame and Subsequent History: Amended August 19, 1992, fortune″ dispute. In running a particular Reported at 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 19253. advertisement without Vanna White’s permission, defendants Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the United (Samsung) and David Deutsch Associates, Inc. States District Court for the Central District of (Deutsch) attempted to capitalize on White’s fame California. D.C. No. CV-88-06499-RSWL. Ronald to enhance their fortune. White sued, alleging S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding. infringement of various intellectual property rights, but the district court granted summary judgment Disposition: The court affirmed the grant of in favor of the defendants. We affirm in part, summary judgment on plaintiff’s right of privacy reverse in part, and remand. claim, but reversed the judgment on the right to publicity and the Lanham Act claims because Plaintiff Vanna White is the hostess of ″Wheel of plaintiff pleaded claims sufficient to go to a jury. Fortune,″ one of the most popular game shows in television history.
[Show full text]