What is the misappropriation of name or likeness?

Useful Rulings on Misappropriation of Name or Likeness

Recent Rulings on Misappropriation of Name or Likeness

EVAN ISRAEL BRENNER VS MIKA JAYMES INC ET AL

MJI and Javahery now move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication on all of the following issues: Issue Number 1: The First Cause of Action for Right of Publicity Under Civil Code Section 3344 Has No Merit Because Plaintiff Has Not and Cannot Establish Essential Elements. Issue Number 2: The First Cause of Action for Right of Publicity Under Civil Code Section 3344 Is Barred by The Two-Year Statute of Limitations Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 339.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

WELLPARK, INC. VS. TRUONG

Dolezal (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 93, 97 [elements of common law claim]; Civil Code 3344 [elements of statutory claim]. It appears that cross-complainant is trying to allege that cross-defendants opened a bank account in his name without his knowledge. However, that is not what is actually alleged. (Cross-complaint at Para. 74.) The demurrer to the eighth cause of action is sustained in its entirety, with leave to amend. This cause of action is not pled with the specificity required for fraud claims.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

ROSEMARY WOODS VS RAZ INVESTMENTS,INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Slander of Title, Common Law Misappropriation of Likeness, Identity Theft, Declaration of Identity Theft [Civil Code §1798.93], & Invasion of Privacy (11th 12th, 13th, 14th, & 15th COAs) Plaintiff failed to allege facts to establish her causes of action for slander of title, misappropriation of likeness, identity theft, declaration of identity theft, and invasion of privacy against DLD Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

JIN V. LI

Third and fourth causes of action for misappropriation of likeness Jin moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the third cause of action for statutory misappropriation of likeness pursuant to Civil Code § 3344 and the fourth cause of action for common law misappropriation of likeness [invasion of privacy]. “[C]ourts have recognized four distinct forms of tortious invasion of privacy: (1) the commercial appropriation of the plaintiff’s name or likeness (codified in California in 1971 in Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2020

VICTOR BORACHUK, ET AL. VS MICHAEL BURG, ET AL.

Unlike in Moran, here, Defendants moved only to strike two causes of action—the claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and the claim for misappropriation of likeness. In addition to those causes of action, Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200. Therefore, Defendants clearly obtained the goal of their motion—to have two causes of action completely stricken.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

KIARA BELEN VS RYAN SEACREST PRODUCTIONS, LLC

Tortious misappropriation of name and likeness requires (1) defendant's use of the plaintiff's identity; (2) appropriation of plaintiff's name or likeness to defendant's advantage; (3) lack of plaintiff’s consent; and (4) resulting injury. (Montana v. San Jose Mercury News (1995) 34 Cal. App. 4th 790, 793.) Plaintiff submitted evidence that her likeness, which was identifiable, was used without her consent to defendants’ advantage, and she suffered an injury.

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

AONE ENTERTAINMENT LLC VS CHASITY DENELLE JAMES ET AL

Code § 3344, which in relevant part states: Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2020

AONE ENTERTAINMENT LLC VS CHASITY DENELLE JAMES ET AL

Code § 3344, which in relevant part states: Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2020

ALAN PARSONS, ET AL. V. JOHN REGNA, ET AL.

Code, § 3344); (5) misappropriation of common law right of publicity; (6) federal trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114); (7) false designation of origin (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), (d)); (8) federal trademark dilution (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)); (9) state trademark dilution and injury to reputation (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 14330); (10) unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.); (11) common law trademark infringement; and, (12) common law unfair competition.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2020

BELLA ALL NATURAL, INC VS MAYELI ALONSO

Fourth Cause of Action (Misappropriation of Likeness). A. Re: No Cause of Action against Cross-Defendant Bella. A common law misappropriation claim is pleaded by “alleging: ‘(1) the defendant's use of the plaintiff's identity; (2) the appropriation of plaintiff's name or likeness to defendant's advantage, commercially or otherwise; (3) lack of consent; and (4) resulting injury. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Montana v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 790, 793 [40 Cal. Rptr. 2d 639].)

  • Hearing

    Nov 26, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

FIKE VS MAI

The Amended Judgment awards Mai judgment in the amount of $50,000.00 against KW on the on the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and awards Mai judgment in the amount of $50,000.00 against Robinson on the on the breach of fiduciary duty and appropriation of likeness causes of action and also awards Mai $200.00 in punitive damages against Robinson. As prevailing party, Mai is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs against KW and Robinson.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

FIKE VS MAI

The Amended Judgment awards Mai judgment in the amount of $50,000.00 against Robinson on the on the breach of fiduciary duty and appropriation of likeness causes of action and also awards Mai $200.00 in punitive damages against Robinson. As such, Mai, not Robinson, is the prevailing party for purposes of the award of statutory costs. In opposition, Robinson fails to offer any grounds for a finding that Robinson is the prevailing party.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JEANETTE BUERLING VS. LIELLE ARAD

The conduct which Defendants are enjoined and restrained from committing is the use of the name, likeness, or identity of Edelweiss German Bierhaus & Restaurant which would be a violation of Civil Code section 3344, as more specifically defined in CACI Nos. 1803 and 1804A. At this juncture, the court is not prepared to rule on whether the picture on the Defendants' web page (attached as exhibit "A" to the declaration of Jeanette Millio) constitutes a violation which should be enjoined or restrained.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2019

JEANETTE BUERLING VS. LIELLE ARAD

The conduct which Defendants are enjoined and restrained from committing is the use of the name, likeness, or identity of Edelweiss German Bierhaus & Restaurant which would be a violation of Civil Code section 3344, as more specifically defined in CACI Nos. 1803 and 1804A. At this juncture, the court is not prepared to rule on whether the picture on the Defendants' web page (attached as exhibit "A" to the declaration of Jeanette Millio) constitutes a violation which should be enjoined or restrained.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2019

FIKE VS MAI

The findings are central to the judgment against Robinson on the causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and appropriation of name or likeness, and to the awards of emotional distress and punitive damages. In opposition Robinson also raises the issue of allocation of Mai's attorney's fees. CCP § 2033.420 "authorizes only those expenses 'incurred in making that proof,' i.e., proving the matters denied by the opposing party" Garcia v. Hyster Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 724, 736–737.

  • Hearing

    Oct 17, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

FIKE VS MAI

The findings are central to the judgment against Robinson on the causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and appropriation of name or likeness, and to the awards of emotional distress and punitive damages. In opposition Robinson also raises the issue of allocation of Mai's attorney's fees. CCP § 2033.420 "authorizes only those expenses 'incurred in making that proof,' i.e., proving the matters denied by the opposing party" Garcia v. Hyster Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 724, 736–737.

  • Hearing

    Oct 17, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DEL RECORDS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS GERARDO ORTIZ MEDINA, ET AL.

Defendants argue that “Plaintiffs want the Court to stay the entire action, but there is no basis in reason to allow claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, or misappropriation of likeness to stagnate for up to a year while the parties litigate issues relating to the Talent Agencies Act before the Labor Commission.” (Id. at p. 5:10-13.) Defendants assert that Styne v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 10, 2019

AUTRY VS GENTILE

Code §3344 and 3344.1: Pursuant to Civ. Code §3344, any person who knowingly uses another’s name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness, in any manner or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person’s prior consent, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person. (Civ. Code §3344(a)(1).) Civ.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2019

DAVID ELIAS VS PACIFIC COAST UNIVERSITY OF LAW, ET AL.

Misappropriation of Likeness 20. IIED AND NIED 21. “Oppression” 22. Civil Rico On June 13, 2019 the court sustained a demurrer by Defendant Carolyn Olson, an employee of Pacific Coast University (“PCU”) to the entire complaint with leave to amend certain causes of action and without leave to amend as to others. On June 25, 2019 the court sustained the demurrers of other PCU employees mostly without leave to amend, but with an opportunity to amend certain negligence based claims.

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

AUTRY VS GENTILE

Code §3344 and 3344.1: Pursuant to Civ. Code §3344, any person who knowingly uses another’s name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness, in any manner or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person’s prior consent, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person. (Civ. Code §3344(a)(1).) Civ.

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2019

JAMES MURTAGH M D VS CLARK BAKER

Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint (“TAC”) on February 18, 2015 against Clark Baker and Office of Medical & Scientific Justice, Inc. (1) IIED; (2) NIED; (3) negligence; (4) defamation; (5) violation of Civil Code section 1798.5; (6) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (8) invasion of privacy; (9) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (10) violation of Civil Code section 3344; (11) unauthorized use of name/likeness; and (12) declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JAMES MURTAGH M D VS CLARK BAKER

Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint (“TAC”) on February 18, 2015 against Clark Baker and Office of Medical & Scientific Justice, Inc. (1) IIED; (2) NIED; (3) negligence; (4) defamation; (5) violation of Civil Code section 1798.5; (6) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (8) invasion of privacy; (9) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (10) violation of Civil Code section 3344; (11) unauthorized use of name/likeness; and (12) declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LEANDRO SORICE VS JOHNSON & JOHNSON, LLP, A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

Code § 3344), but as Defendants know, there are any number of scenarios in which prevailing parties are not awarded their entire fees and costs, such as when a Court determines that the fees requested are unreasonable or when the opposing party files a successful motion to tax costs. Otherwise, why indicate that Plaintiff will be responsible for costs “not reimbursed by defendant or ordered by the Court”?

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

NATANIA CHETRIT VS JEFFREY ALLEN LEVE

Common Law Invasion of Privacy The four common law privacy torts of public disclosure of private facts, false light, intrusion upon seclusion, and appropriation of name and likeness are separate causes of action with elements that are separate and distinct from a California constitutional invasion of privacy. (See Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

AONE ENTERTAINMENT LLC VS CHASITY DENELLE JAMES ET AL

Code § 3344(a). However, Plaintiff has not provided their hourly rate or the hours worked on the case, to determine if the amount requested is reasonable.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2019

1 2 3 4 5     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.