Abdul-Jabbar v. General Motors Corp.

Citation85 F.3d 407
Decision Date23 May 1996
Docket NumberP,ABDUL-JABBA,No. 94-55597,94-55597
PartiesKareemlaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; Leo Burnett Company, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Ronald L. Johnston and Cynthia S. Arato, Blanc, Williams, Johnston & Kronstadt, Los Angeles, California, and David M. Rosman Amy D. Hogue and Michael B. Garfinkel, Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, Los Angeles, California, for defendants-appellees.

Los Angeles, California, for plaintiff-appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Irving Hill, Senior District Judge, Presiding.

Before: T.G. NELSON and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and LEGGE, * District Judge.

T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judge:

Former basketball star Kareem Abdul-Jabbar appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of General Motors Corporation ("GMC") and its advertising agency, Leo Burnett Co., in his action alleging violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and California's statutory and common law right of publicity. Abdul-Jabbar argues that GMC violated his trademark and publicity rights by using his former name, Lew Alcindor, without his consent, in a television commercial aired during the 1993 NCAA men's basketball tournament. The district court based its judgment on all causes of action largely on its findings that Abdul-Jabbar had abandoned the name "Lew Alcindor," and that GMC's use of the name could not be construed as an endorsement of its product by Abdul-Jabbar. Having jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we reverse and remand for trial.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This dispute concerns a GMC television commercial aired during the 1993 NCAA men's basketball tournament. The record includes a videotape of the spot, which plays as follows: A disembodied voice asks, "How 'bout some trivia?" This question is followed by the appearance of a screen bearing the printed words, "You're Talking to the Champ." The voice then asks, "Who holds the record for being voted the most outstanding player of this tournament?" In the screen appear the printed words, "Lew Alcindor, UCLA, '67, '68, '69." Next, the voice asks, "Has any car made the 'Consumer Digest's Best Buy' list more than once? [and responds:] The Oldsmobile Eighty-Eight has." A seven-second film clip of the automobile, with its price, follows. During the clip, the voice says, "In fact, it's made that list three years in a row. And now you can get this Eighty-Eight special edition for just $18,995." At the end of the clip, a message appears in print on the screen: "A Definite First Round Pick," accompanied by the voice saying, "it's your money." A final printed message appears: "Demand Better, 88 by Oldsmobile."

The following facts are undisputed. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was named Ferdinand Lewis ("Lew") Alcindor at birth, and played basketball under that name throughout his college career and into his early years in the National Basketball Association ("NBA"). While in college, he converted to Islam and began to use the Muslim name "Kareem Abdul-Jabbar" among friends. Several years later, in 1971, he opted to record the name "Kareem Abdul-Jabbar" under an Illinois name recordation statute, and thereafter played basketball and endorsed products under that name. 1 He has not used the name "Lew Alcindor" for commercial purposes in over ten years.

GMC did not obtain Abdul-Jabbar's consent, nor did it pay him, to use his former name in the commercial described above. When Abdul-Jabbar complained to GMC about the commercial, the company promptly withdrew the ad. The ad aired about five or six times in March 1993 prior to its withdrawal. The parties dispute whether Abdul-Jabbar abandoned the name Lew Alcindor and whether the ad could be construed as an Abdul-Jabbar brought suit in federal district court in May 1993, alleging claims under the Lanham Act and California's statutory and common law rights of publicity. The district court held a hearing on March 14, 1994. During the hearing, incorporated by reference into the order of summary judgment, the district court announced its "tentative finding that plaintiff has abandoned the name Lew Alcindor, and has abandoned the right to protect that name, and the right to assert any other rights that flow from his having had that name at one time in the past." This finding forms the basis for the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of GMC on both the Lanham Act and the state law causes of action. 2 Abdul-Jabbar timely appealed.

endorsement by Abdul-Jabbar of the 88 Oldsmobile.

ANALYSIS

A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Jesinger v. Nevada Federal Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir.1994). We must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact, and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. Id.; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). We are not to weigh the evidence or determine the truth of the matter, but only to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Jesinger, 24 F.3d at 1130.

I The Lanham Act

"[A]n express purpose of the Lanham Act is to protect commercial parties against unfair competition." Waits v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 978 F.2d 1093, 1108 (9th Cir.1992). In Waits, we held as a matter of first impression that false endorsement claims are properly cognizable under section 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), of the Lanham Act. Id. at 1107. "Section 43(a) [as amended in 1988] ... expressly prohibits, inter alia, the use of any symbol or device which is likely to deceive consumers as to the association, sponsorship, or approval of goods or services by another person." Id. 3 Accordingly, we held actionable:

[a] false endorsement claim based on the unauthorized use of a celebrity's identity ... [which] alleges the misuse of a trademark, i.e., a symbol or device such as a visual likeness, vocal imitation, or other uniquely distinguishing characteristic, which is likely to confuse consumers as to the plaintiff's sponsorship or approval of the product.

Id. at 1110. Abdul-Jabbar contends that GMC's unauthorized use of his birth name, Lew Alcindor, was likely to confuse consumers as to his endorsement of the Olds 88, and thus violates the Lanham Act.

GMC offers two defenses in response to this claim: 1) Abdul-Jabbar lost his rights to the name Lew Alcindor when he "abandoned" it; and 2) GMC's use of the name Lew Alcindor was a nominative fair use which is not subject to the protection of the Lanham Act. The district court held both defenses applicable.

a) Abandonment under the Lanham Act

While the district court found that there was no dispute as to GMC's failure to seek or obtain Abdul-Jabbar's consent to use his former name in its commercial, and that "on its face, the Lanham Act applies," it held that GMC was entitled to summary judgment on the basis of its finding that Abdul-Jabbar had abandoned his former name through nonuse under the Lanham Act. Title 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (1992) provides in pertinent part:

A mark shall be deemed to be "abandoned" when either of the following occurs:

(1) When its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume such use. Intent not to resume may be inferred from circumstances. Nonuse for two consecutive years shall be prima facie evidence of abandonment. "Use" of a mark means the bona fide use of that mark made in the ordinary course of trade, and not merely to reserve a right in a mark.

(2) When any course of conduct of the owner, including acts of omission as well as commission, causes the mark to become ... generic....

Once created, a prima facie case of abandonment may be rebutted by showing valid reasons for nonuse or lack of intent to abandon the mark. Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. P.J. Rhodes & Co., 769 F.2d 1393, 1396 (9th Cir.1985). 4 Because Abdul-Jabbar acknowledged that he had not used the name Lew Alcindor in over ten years, and because the district court found that plaintiff's proffered religious reasons for nonuse were not applicable, 5 the court held that Abdul-Jabbar had in effect abandoned the name.

Trademark law withdraws its protection from a mark that has become generic and deems it available for general use. Given that

the primary cost of recognizing property rights in trademarks is the removal of words from (or perhaps non-entrance into) our language, ... the holder of a trademark will be denied protection if it is (or becomes) generic, i.e., if it does not relate exclusively to the trademark owner's product.

New Kids on the Block v. News America Pub., Inc., 971 F.2d 302, 306 (9th Cir.1992). Similarly, the law ceases to protect the owner of an abandoned mark. Rather than countenancing the "removal" or retirement of the abandoned mark from commercial speech, trademark law allows it to be used by another. Accordingly, courts have held that an unused mark may not be held in abeyance by its original owner. See, e.g., La Societe Anonyme des Parfums Le Galion v. Jean Patou, Inc., 495 F.2d 1265, 1272 (2d Cir.1974). 6

While the Lanham Act has been applied to cases alleging appropriation of a celebrity's identity, the abandonment defense has never to our knowledge been applied to a person's name or identity. We decline to stretch the federal law of trademark to encompass such a defense. One's birth name is an integral part of one's identity; it is not bestowed for commercial purposes, nor is it "kept alive" through commercial use. A proper name thus cannot be deemed "abandoned" throughout its possessor's life, despite his failure to use it, or continue to use it, commercially.

In other words, an individual's given name, unlike a trademark, has a life and a significance quite apart from the commercial realm. Use or nonuse of the name for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
178 cases
  • In re Facebook, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • September 9, 2019
    ...an economic return through some medium of commercial promotion." (internal quotations omitted)); see also Abdul-Jabbar v. General Motors Corp. , 85 F.3d 407, 415 (9th Cir. 1996) ; cf. Perkins v. LinkedIn Corp. , 53 F. Supp. 3d 1190, 1217 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Because the Court cannot conceive o......
  • Failey v. Donahoe
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • March 26, 2013
    ...is a genuine issue for trial." Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796, 800 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Abdul-Jabbar v. General Motors Corp., 85 F.3d 407, 410 (9th Cir. 1996)). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has described "the shifting burden of proof governing motions for summary jud......
  • Fraley v. Facebook, Inc
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • December 16, 2011
    ...held that the commercial use of a person's newsworthy acts may nonetheless still result in liability under § 3344. See Abdul–Jabbar v. GMC, 85 F.3d 407, 416 (9th Cir.1996) (“While [Kareem Abdul–Jabbar's] basketball record may be said to be ‘newsworthy,’ its use is not automatically privileg......
  • Fischer v. Stephen T. Forrest, Jr., Sandra F. Forrest, Shane R. Gebauer, & Brushy Mountain Bee Farm, Inc., 14 Civ. 1304 (PAE) (AJP)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • July 14, 2017
    ...of the mechanics of website URLs, does not guide the Court's consumer confusion analysis. 33. Compare Abdul-Jabbar v. Gen. Motors Corp., 85 F.3d 407, 409, 413 (9th Cir. 1996) (use of professional basketball player's name in television commercial); Beastie Boys v. Monster Energy Co., 66 F. S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
6 books & journal articles
  • Defamation and privacy
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Causes of Action
    • March 31, 2022
    ...star Kareem Abdul-Jabbar could assert a common law claim for use of his former name, Lew Alcindor. Abdul-Jabbar v. General Motors Corp. , 85 F.3d 407, 415 (9th Cir. 1996). Non-celebrities have a right to sue for misappropriation of their identity. Dora v. Frontline Video, Inc. , 15 Cal. App......
  • The First Amendment and the Right(s) of Publicity.
    • United States
    • October 1, 2020
    ...and analyzing the right of publicity using the trademark frameworks of confusion, dilution, cybersquatting, and merchandising). (90.) 85 F.3d 407, 412, 415-16 (9th Cir. 1996) (concluding that although General Motors Corporation used Abdul-Jabbar's previous name, Lew Alcindor, consumers woul......
  • What's the score? Does the right of publicity protect professional sports leagues?
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 62 No. 2, December 1998
    • December 22, 1998
    ...might be violated wherever their performances are broadcast without their consent"). (13) See Abdul-Jabbar v. General Motors Corp., 85 F.3d 407 (9th Cir. 1996) (ruling that the unauthorized use of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's former name and his college basketball statistics violated his common la......
  • Irrelevant confusion.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 62 No. 2, January 2010
    • January 1, 2010
    ...about the law, but actual consumer behavior, that plaintiffs would have to show. (151.) See, e.g., Abdul-Jabbar v. Gen. Motors Corp., 85 F.3d 407 (9th Cir. 1996); Waits v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 978 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. (152.) See Ben Quarmby, Pirates Among the Second Life Islands: Why You Should ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT