What is the misappropriation of name or likeness?

Useful Rulings on Misappropriation of Name or Likeness

Recent Rulings on Misappropriation of Name or Likeness

TEJEDA-NETTLES VS SAMIRA SEINI, D.D.S.

Demurrer to 2nd COA for Misappropriation of Likeness: Sustained with Leave to Amend Plaintiff Jessica alleges that defendants are using pictures of her in their advertisements, in violation of Civil Code §3344. Pursuant thereto, any person who knowingly uses another's likeness on products or advertisements without such person's prior consent shall be liable for damages and/or disgorgement.

  • Hearing

LYLE HOWRY VS REGINALD MYLABATHULA BENJAMIN, ET AL.

Fifth Cause of Action In his fifth cause of action for misappropriation of name or likeness claim, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants used a restraining order they obtained to defame Plaintiff and damage his business. Statements made in the course of litigation are generally considered protected, including those made to third parties so long as they were made in connection with the litigation regarding substantive issues in the litigation and to those who have some interest in the litigation. (Neville v.

  • Hearing

SHAUN WHITE VS OAKLEY, INC., ET AL.

This objection is not well taken given that the claims in this action are for misappropriation of right of publicity under Civil Code § 3344 and common law misappropriation of right of publicity, not including the two other cross-complaints. In addition, Defendants are required to justify objections based on burden and have not done so with respect to these requests.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MIN HEE LEE, ET AL. VS GOLD REED, A DBA OF UNKNOWN FORM, ET AL.

On December 16, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint, and on July 22, 2020, the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for the following causes of action: (1) Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Breach of Uniform Commercial Code Article 2; (4) Common Counts; (5) Fraud and Conspiracy; (6) Conversion; (7) Trespass to Chattels; (8) Identity Theft; (9) Appropriation of Name or Likeness; (10) Intentional Interference with Advantageous Business Relationships (11) Intentional

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LYLE HOWRY VS REGINALD MYLABATHULA BENJAMIN, ET AL.

Fifth Cause of Action In his fifth cause of action for misappropriation of name or likeness claim, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants used a restraining order they obtained to defame Plaintiff and damage his business. Statements made in the course of litigation are generally considered protected, including those made to third parties so long as they were made in connection with the litigation regarding substantive issues in the litigation and to those who have some interest in the litigation. (Neville v.

  • Hearing

JUSTIN JENNINGS VS SAMUEL JINKYOO KANG, ET AL.

Plaintiff filed the FAC on December 13, 2019, alleging 8 causes of action for (1) failure to provide rest and meal periods, (2) failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statements, (3) failure to pay overtime, (4) failure to make payment within required time, (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (6) violation of the Immigration Consultants Act (ICA), (7) violation of Civil Code section 3344, and (8) unfair competition in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

TIMED OUT LLC VS PRISMA ENTERTAINMENT LLC

Code § 3344, subd. (a).) Since Timed Out obtained judgment in its favor, it is the prevailing party, and since one of the claims upon which it prevailed was brought under Civil Code § 3344, it is entitled to attorney fees and costs under Civil Code § 3344. “It is well established that the determination of what constitutes reasonable attorney fees is committed to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision cannot be reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion.” (Melnyk v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JEROME OGDEN VS LIUMEIBANG ORGANIZATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On October 31, 2019, Plaintiff commenced this action and on January 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed his verified first amended complaint against Defendants, asserting causes of action for: (1) common law misappropriation; (2) Civil code section 3344 misappropriation; and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SHAUN WHITE VS OAKLEY, INC., ET AL.

., and Does 1- 20 for (1) misappropriation of right of publicity under Civil Code § 3344 and (2) common law misappropriation of right of publicity. The complaint alleges that Shaun White is a global snowboarding icon, Olympian, and a decorated athlete. (See Compl. ¶ 13.) Shaun White turned professional at the age of 13 and was then sponsored. (Id. ¶ 14.) Oakley is a Washington corporation with various retail locations in Los Angeles, County. (Id. ¶ 7.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SUSAN BITTAN VS AQ SKIN SOLUTIONS INC ET AL

Anthony Reading, and (3) $7,530 for Dante Puccinelli as Civil Code section 3344 does not allow for recovery of such costs. In reply, Plaintiff argues that expert costs are allowed pursuant to the parties’ agreement. The parties settlement provided for “payment of all attorney fees and costs in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to a fee motion wherein Plaintiff is deemed the prevailing party under Civil Code Section 3344 for purposes of the fee motion.”

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARIA DODOS VS CHUCK AND JACKIE WEISSMAN, DOES 1-25

On November 13, 2017, the Weissmans filed their cross-complaint against Plaintiff and Roes 1 to 60 asserting six causes of action for: (1) continuing private nuisance; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) intentional misrepresentation; (4) appropriation of likeness; (5) breach of CC&Rs; and (6) declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

ADDISON, A MINOR BY NICHOLAS K KOUMOULIS VS THINK OPERATIONS, LLC, A TEXAS CORPORATION

Background Claimant, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Petitioner, filed a Complaint against Defendant Think Operations, LLC (“Defendant”) on February 10, 2020, for (1) common law misappropriation of likeness and (2) violation of California Civil Code §3344 (statutory misappropriation of likeness for Defendant’s alleged unauthorized use of Claimant’s likeness marketing its products.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARIA DODOS VS CHUCK AND JACKIE WEISSMAN, DOES 1-25

On November 13, 2017, the Weissmans filed their cross-complaint against Plaintiff and Roes 1 to 60 asserting six causes of action for: (1) continuing private nuisance; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) intentional misrepresentation; (4) appropriation of likeness; (5) breach of CC&Rs; and (6) declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

JANE DOE VS OCEAN RONQUILLO MORGAN

Only four claims remain at issue in this lawsuit: (1) violation of privacy - appropriation of name and likeness; (2) conversion; (3) defamation; and (4) wrongful impersonation by electronic means. The first and third causes of action arise out of Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant posted photos of Plaintiff on a dating website, Seeking Arrangement. (SAC ¶¶ 20-23, 34-35.)

  • Hearing

TIMED OUT LLC VS TROPICAL ENTERTAINMENT INC

Special Interrogatories Numbers 193 and 195 Code of Civil Procedure, section 3344, subdivision (a) provides that any person who knowingly uses another’s image is liable for damages to the person whose image was used without their permission.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JEROME OGDEN VS LIUMEIBANG ORGANIZATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Code, § 3344, subds. (a), (e).) “To prove the common law cause of action, the plaintiff must establish: (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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

EVAN ISRAEL BRENNER VS MIKA JAYMES INC ET AL

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges two causes of action for: (1) right of publicity under Civil Code, § 3344 and (2) common law right of publicity. On October 30, 2019, Plaintiff’s former counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel was granted. On July 10, 2020, the court denied MJI and Javahery’s(“Defendants”) motion for summary judgment without prejudice “at least until the discovery issues are resolved.” (see July 10, 2020 Minute Order at p. 8-9.)

  • Hearing

UN A SOHN ET AL VS MICHELLE SIM ET AL

procedural history Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on April 20, 2018, alleging four causes of action: Breach of Duty of Loyalty Fraud Slander Per Se Appropriation of Likeness Sim and Global filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiffs on June 4, 2018, alleging 12 causes of action: Contractual Indemnity Declaratory Relief Implied Equitable Indemnity Breach of Contract Fraud Fraudulent Transfers Illegal Corporate Distributions Against Shareholders On Behalf of Dissolved Corporation By Its Creditors (

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JEROME OGDEN VS LIUMEIBANG ORGANIZATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On October 31, 2019, Plaintiff commenced this action and on January 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed his verified first amended complaint against Defendants, asserting causes of action for: (1) common law misappropriation; (2) Civil code section 3344 misappropriation; and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JIN V. LI

On June 30, 2020, Fuzu filed the FAXC, asserting causes of action for: 1) Breach of charitable trust (against Jin and Yaning); 2) Constructive fraud (against Jin and Yaning); 3) Fraud and intentional deceit (against Jin and Yaning); 4) Civil conspiracy (against Jin and Yaning); 5) Commercial misappropriation of likeness (against Jin); and, 6) Common law misappropriation of likeness/invasion of privacy (against Jin).

  • Hearing

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

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

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

  • 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

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

1 2 3 4 5 6     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.