GUARDING THE SELF: UNRAVELING THE INTERSECTION OF PERSONALITY RIGHTS, COMPETITION, AND UNFAIR PRACTICES
Volume 2Issue II Year 2023
Agnes Augustian
Research scholar, IUCIPRS, CUSAT
agnesaugustian1511@gmail.com
Dr.Vishnu Sankar.P
Assistant Professor, IUCIPRS, CUSAT
vishnusankar.cusat@gmail.com
Table of Contents
Agnes Augustian
Research scholar, IUCIPRS, CUSAT
agnesaugustian1511@gmail.com
Dr.Vishnu Sankar.P
Assistant Professor, IUCIPRS, CUSAT
vishnusankar.cusat@gmail.com
Personality right- Competition- unfair Competition- commercial exploitation- Celebrity’s Sponsorship
1. Alice Haemmerli, Whose Who? The Case for a Kantian Right of Publicity,49 DUKE LAW JOURNAL383,384(1999).
2. Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., Case No.: 11-CV-01726-LHK (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012).
3. PETER CANE, TORT LAW AND ECONOMIC INTERESTS (Clarendon Press, 1996).
4. Terry, Andrew.Unfair Competition and the Misappropriation of a Competitors Trade Values,51THE MODERN LAW REVIEW, 297,296-322(1988).
5. Shelanski, Howard A. Unilateral Refusals To Deal In Intellectual And Other Property,76 ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL,369,368-369(2009).
6. Semeraro, Steven, Propertys End: Why Competition Policy Should Limit the Right of Publicity,43CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW,753, (2011).
7. Mark F. Grady, A Positive Economic Theory of the Right of Publicity, 1 UCLA ENT. L. REV. 97, 10304, 126 (1994) (arguing that a right of publicity is necessary to coordinate a market for a celebrity?s name and to prevent rapid dissipation of the value of publicity assets through overuse); William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, Indefinitely Renewable Copyright, 70 U. CHI. L. REV. 471, 485 (2003) (claiming that a justification for the right of publicity, and for characterizing it as inheritable, is that it prevents the premature exhaustion of the commercial value of the celebrity?s name or likeness); Richard A. Posner, Misappropriation: A Dirge, 40 HOUS. L. REV. 621, 634 (2003) [hereinafter Posner, Misappropriation] (The rationale of the right of publicity cases lies . . . in the danger of a congestion externality if there is no control over the use of the celebrity?s name or likeness in advertising and other commercial uses.)
8. Semeraro, Steven, Propertys End: Why Competition Policy Should Limit the Right of Publicity CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW. 99. (2011).
9. Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 HARV. L. REV. 193, 19596, 205 (1890).
10. Shubha Ghosh, On Bobbling Heads, Paparazzi, and Justice Hugo Black, 45 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 617, 619 (2005).
11. Mr. Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P & Co. & Anr CS(COMM) 395/2017.
12. Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions-2015 (62) PTC 351 and Mr. Gautam Gambhir vs D.A.P & Co. & Anr CS(COMM) 395/2017.
13. Dogan, Stacey L., and Mark A. Lemley. What the Right of Publicity Can Learn from Trademark Law, 58 STANFORD LAW REVIEW, 1161220(2006).
14. Stacey L. Dogan and Mark A. Lemley- What the Right of Publicity Can Learn from Trademark Law- Dogan & Lemley 58 STAN. L. REV. 1161(2006).
15. Id-12
16. Chicago Board of Trade v. United States, 246 U.S. 231, 38 S. Ct. 242 (1918)
17. Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 25 Cal.4th 387, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 126, 21 P.3d 797 (Cal. 2001).
18. Federal Trade Commission v. Ticor Title Insurance, 504 U.S. 621, 112 S. Ct. 2169 (1992).
19. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (as amended on September 28, 1979)- World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) TRT/PARIS/001 Article 10bis Unfair Competition.
20. Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow & Co [1889] LR 23 QBD 598.
21. WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook WIPO 2004- WIPO PUBLICATION No. 489 (E) ISBN 978-92-805-1291-5 Source https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/489/wipo_pub_489.pdf
22. WIPO Protection Against Unfair Competition (1994) (WIPO Pub No 725(E))
23. 15 U.S.C. 1125 (SECTION 43 OF THE LANHAM ACT): False Designations of Origin, False Descriptions, And Dilution Forbidden
24. Garima Budhiraja, Publicity Rights of Celebrities: An Analysis Under The Intellectual Property Regime- NALSAR STUDENT LAW REVIEW. 85 (2011).
25. Kwall, Roberta Rosenthal, Fame, 73 INDIANA LAW JOURNAL (1997)
26. W. Page Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts ch. 19 and ch. 24 (5th edn., 2004); further, e.g., sections 823, 826 German Civil Code (BGB) and section 4 no. 1 and no. 2 Unfair Competition Act (UWG)
27. Konrad Zweigert & Hein Ktz, An Introduction to Comparative Law 43, 685 et seq., 713 (3rd edn., 1998).
28. DIRECTIVE 2006/114/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (codified version)- Official Journal of the European Union.
29. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, 54 of 1969 (India).
30. Competition Act, 2002, 12 of 2002 (India).
31. Sandra N S- A Study On Unfair Trade Practices In India,4 JCIL P A G E Journal On Contemporary Issues Of Law [JCIL]
32. Javed Jaffrey v. Zee Telefilms Limited (2001) 20 PTC 35.
33. Times Music Ltd. v. Krishna Kumar Menon (2012) SCC OnLine Bom 192.
34. Metropolitan Opera v. Wagner-Nichols R. Corp., 199 Misc. 786, 101 N.Y.S.2d 483 (N.Y. Misc. 1950).
35. Hirsch v. S.C. Johnson Son, Inc., 90 Wis. 2d 379, 280 N.W.2d 129 (Wis. 1979).
36. Principle of unjust enrichment
37. Lugosi v. Universal Pictures, 25 Cal.3d 813, 160 Cal. Rptr. 323, 603 P.2d 425 (Cal. 1979).
38. Joel v. Various John Does, 499 F. Supp. 791 (E.D. Wis. 1980)
39. Lugosi v. Universal Pictures., (1979) 603 P.2d 425.
40. Estate of Presley v. Russen, 513 F. Supp. 1339 (D.N.J. 1981)
41. Winterland Concessions Co. v. Sileo, 528 F. Supp. 1201 (N.D. Ill. 1982)
42. Id.41
43. Proactive Sports Management Ltd v Rooney [2011] EWCA Civ 1444
44. Id.43
45. Competition Act, 2002, 12 of 2002 (India)
References
1. Alice Haemmerli, Whose Who? The Case for a Kantian Right of Publicity,49 DUKE LAW JOURNAL383,384(1999).
2. Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., Case No.: 11-CV-01726-LHK (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012).
3. PETER CANE, TORT LAW AND ECONOMIC INTERESTS (Clarendon Press, 1996).
4. Terry, Andrew.Unfair Competition and the Misappropriation of a Competitors Trade Values,51THE MODERN LAW REVIEW, 297,296-322(1988).
5. Shelanski, Howard A. Unilateral Refusals To Deal In Intellectual And Other Property,76 ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL,369,368-369(2009).
6. Semeraro, Steven, Propertys End: Why Competition Policy Should Limit the Right of Publicity,43CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW,753, (2011).
7. Mark F. Grady, A Positive Economic Theory of the Right of Publicity, 1 UCLA ENT. L. REV. 97, 10304, 126 (1994) (arguing that a right of publicity is necessary to coordinate a market for a celebrity?s name and to prevent rapid dissipation of the value of publicity assets through overuse); William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, Indefinitely Renewable Copyright, 70 U. CHI. L. REV. 471, 485 (2003) (claiming that a justification for the right of publicity, and for characterizing it as inheritable, is that it prevents the premature exhaustion of the commercial value of the celebrity?s name or likeness); Richard A. Posner, Misappropriation: A Dirge, 40 HOUS. L. REV. 621, 634 (2003) [hereinafter Posner, Misappropriation] (The rationale of the right of publicity cases lies . . . in the danger of a congestion externality if there is no control over the use of the celebrity?s name or likeness in advertising and other commercial uses.)
8. Semeraro, Steven, Propertys End: Why Competition Policy Should Limit the Right of Publicity CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW. 99. (2011).
9. Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 HARV. L. REV. 193, 19596, 205 (1890).
10. Shubha Ghosh, On Bobbling Heads, Paparazzi, and Justice Hugo Black, 45 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 617, 619 (2005).
11. Mr. Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P & Co. & Anr CS(COMM) 395/2017.
12. Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions-2015 (62) PTC 351 and Mr. Gautam Gambhir vs D.A.P & Co. & Anr CS(COMM) 395/2017.
13. Dogan, Stacey L., and Mark A. Lemley. What the Right of Publicity Can Learn from Trademark Law, 58 STANFORD LAW REVIEW, 1161220(2006).
14. Stacey L. Dogan and Mark A. Lemley- What the Right of Publicity Can Learn from Trademark Law- Dogan & Lemley 58 STAN. L. REV. 1161(2006).
15. Id-12
16. Chicago Board of Trade v. United States, 246 U.S. 231, 38 S. Ct. 242 (1918)
17. Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 25 Cal.4th 387, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 126, 21 P.3d 797 (Cal. 2001).
18. Federal Trade Commission v. Ticor Title Insurance, 504 U.S. 621, 112 S. Ct. 2169 (1992).
19. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (as amended on September 28, 1979)- World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) TRT/PARIS/001 Article 10bis Unfair Competition.
20. Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow & Co [1889] LR 23 QBD 598.
21. WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook WIPO 2004- WIPO PUBLICATION No. 489 (E) ISBN 978-92-805-1291-5 Source https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/489/wipo_pub_489.pdf
22. WIPO Protection Against Unfair Competition (1994) (WIPO Pub No 725(E))
23. 15 U.S.C. 1125 (SECTION 43 OF THE LANHAM ACT): False Designations of Origin, False Descriptions, And Dilution Forbidden
24. Garima Budhiraja, Publicity Rights of Celebrities: An Analysis Under The Intellectual Property Regime- NALSAR STUDENT LAW REVIEW. 85 (2011).
25. Kwall, Roberta Rosenthal, Fame, 73 INDIANA LAW JOURNAL (1997)
26. W. Page Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts ch. 19 and ch. 24 (5th edn., 2004); further, e.g., sections 823, 826 German Civil Code (BGB) and section 4 no. 1 and no. 2 Unfair Competition Act (UWG)
27. Konrad Zweigert & Hein Ktz, An Introduction to Comparative Law 43, 685 et seq., 713 (3rd edn., 1998).
28. DIRECTIVE 2006/114/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (codified version)- Official Journal of the European Union.
29. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, 54 of 1969 (India).
30. Competition Act, 2002, 12 of 2002 (India).
31. Sandra N S- A Study On Unfair Trade Practices In India,4 JCIL P A G E Journal On Contemporary Issues Of Law [JCIL]
32. Javed Jaffrey v. Zee Telefilms Limited (2001) 20 PTC 35.
33. Times Music Ltd. v. Krishna Kumar Menon (2012) SCC OnLine Bom 192.
34. Metropolitan Opera v. Wagner-Nichols R. Corp., 199 Misc. 786, 101 N.Y.S.2d 483 (N.Y. Misc. 1950).
35. Hirsch v. S.C. Johnson Son, Inc., 90 Wis. 2d 379, 280 N.W.2d 129 (Wis. 1979).
36. Principle of unjust enrichment
37. Lugosi v. Universal Pictures, 25 Cal.3d 813, 160 Cal. Rptr. 323, 603 P.2d 425 (Cal. 1979).
38. Joel v. Various John Does, 499 F. Supp. 791 (E.D. Wis. 1980)
39. Lugosi v. Universal Pictures., (1979) 603 P.2d 425.
40. Estate of Presley v. Russen, 513 F. Supp. 1339 (D.N.J. 1981)
41. Winterland Concessions Co. v. Sileo, 528 F. Supp. 1201 (N.D. Ill. 1982)
42. Id.41
43. Proactive Sports Management Ltd v Rooney [2011] EWCA Civ 1444
44. Id.43
45. Competition Act, 2002, 12 of 2002 (India)