Hamster?
Posted on 10/28/2015 6:38:30 AM PDT by ConservativeStatement
Hamster?
at least 45 years
um, ok, but that is a toy representing a human. you don’t think it’s odd that a hamster toy has a surname, which just so happens to be that of a media personality? if there was a ferret named DAN RATHER do you think he might have sued over it? LOL!
Why wouldn’t she win, it’s her name, and if the hamster is a girl, well, there aren’t that many girls named Harris.
It’s not like her name is Mary Smith, which I admit would be a boring name for a toy.
People in her role have a value in their name. Nothing wrong with protecting it.
What does the color of her husband’s skin have to do with anything?
“Because name-sameness is not enough to state a claim for a violation of one’s right of publicity under well-established law, and because Ms. Faulkner’s attempt to claim that the hamster toy misappropriates her likeness is implausible on its face, Ms. Faulkner’s Third Cause of Action alleging a violation of her right of publicity fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted and should be dismissed with prejudice.”See FReeper PIF's post #7 for comparison image.
Fox news ho’
“Why wouldn’t she win, it’s her name”
Names aren’t protected intellectual property.
You can sue for using your likeness, but a name alone doesn’t meet that standard. So, unless you trademark your name, anyone can use it.
ok, I will give you teddy ruxpin, but Alyce Cleo is a first and middle name, not a surname. I know this because my girls had cabbage patch dolls and they did not have surnames. besides they are human. I imagine Mr. Theodore Ruxpin may have sued also, back in the day ; )
Yes - Go big or go home:
Did Richard Gere buy them all??
See Hillary Clinton nutcracker, etc. Not that I disagree with you on protecting one's good name and reputation, and even taking advantage of a famous likeness to secure royalties on reproduction, but how much damage do you think plaintiff in this case has, on account of a plush toy (that doesn't even resemble the plaintiff) bears her name?
No damages. Absence of resemblance, no negative connotation even if some of the public associates her with the toy.
“but how much damage do you think plaintiff in this case has, on account of a plush toy (that doesn’t even resemble the plaintiff) bears her name?”
Doesn’t matter. If she doesn’t protect her name in this case she won’t be able to protect it at all. You have to protect it or lose it.
So does everybody named Harris Faulkner (and everybody named Benson Detwyler, or pick a name from this list) have a cause of action? Their name (but not likeness) has been appropriated for commercial purposes.
Online whitepages shows three Harris Faulkners. One in Sterling, NY; one in Saint Paul, MN; and one in Harrisburg, PA.
Well that is very interesting. Anyone who is even vaguely famous should copyright their name it seems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.