Paris Hilton

I
SPILLANESHAEFFER
ARONOFFBANDLOW LLP
2 LincolnD. Bandlow(SBN 170449)
1880CenturvParkEast.Suite1004
t
Los Anseles.CA 90067-2627
J
Telephone:(3 I 0) 229-9300
229-9380
4 Fa x:'(3 10)
Emai| : [email protected]
5
Attornevsfor Defendant
6 HALLMARK CARDS,INCORPORATED
8
9
LINITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
i0
CENTRALDISTRICTOF CALIFORNIA
l1
t2 PARISHILTON,an individual,
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
15 HALLMARK CARDS,a Missouri
l6
coqporation;
andDOES I throughl0
lncluslve.
t7
l8
t9
20
2l
22
23
Defendants.
CASENO. CV 07-05818PA (AJWx)
DEFENDANTHALLMARK
CARDS,INCORPORATED'S
NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO DISMISSUNDER
FRCP 12(ll-l(6l:SUPPORTING
MEMORANDTM OF POINTS
AND AUT}IORITIBS
fNoticeof MotionandSpecial
Motionto StrikeCompldintUnder
For
C.C.P.$ 425.16;Reqdest
JudiciafNotice:andDeclarations
of
LincolnD. Bandlow.Marianne
McDermottandChristopher
Darst
filed concunentlyl
Date:December
3,2001
Time: I :30p.m.
Judge:Hon.PercyAnderson
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISM]SS
1
I
TO ALL PARTIESAND THEIR ATTORNEYSOF RECORD:
2
3,2007,at 1:30p.ffi.,or assoon
PLEASETAKE NOTICEthaton December
a
J
thereafterascounselmay be heard,in Courtroom15of the above-entitled
Court,the
4 HonorablePercyAndersonpresiding,locatedat3l2 N. SpringStreet,Los Angeles,
("Hallmark")will and
5 California90012,DefendantHallmarkCards,Incorporated
6 herebydoesmovetheCourtpursuant
to Rule12(bX6)of theFederalRulesof Civil
,7
Procedurefor an orderdismissingtheAmendedComplaint,andeachclaim for relief
8 containedtherein,filed by PlaintiffParisHilton ("Hilton").
9
This Motion is madefollowingtheconference
of counselpursuantto Central
IO DistrictLocalRule7-3,whichtookplaceon September
28, 2007.
1t
Hallmark'sMotionis madeon thefollowinggrounds:
t2
L
Hallmark'sspeechandthe speechthatformsthe basisof eachof
l3
Hilton's claimsfor reiiefis fully protectedunderthe First and
1A
l. +
Fourteenth
Amendments
of the UnitedStatesConstitutionandunder
r5
Article I, Section2 of the CaliforniaConstitution;
l6
2.
t7
Hilton's first claim for relief,for commonlaw misappropriation
of
Hilton'sright of publicity,failsto statea claimuponwhichreliefcan
l8
' :-[1H::,T:'ffi:;ffi#*::H:*s require
apure,y
r9
20
commercialpurpose,but Hallmark'sspeechaboutHilton was
2l
expressive,
not commercial
;
22
b. The transformative
natureof Hallmark'sspeechaboutHilton
23
precludesliability;and
1
A
/-1
c. The speechaboutHilton wasa matterof "public interest"and
25
26
"publicaffairs;"
3.
Hilton's secondclaimfor relief,for violationof LanhamAct $ 43(a),
27
15 U.S,C.$1125(a),failsto statea claimuponwhichreliefcanbe
28
grantedfor the followingindependent
reasons:
SSAB
I
DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
I
The useof Hilton'sooname
andidentity"wasartisticallyrelevant
2
andthusthe First Amendment
to a work of protectedexpression
a
barsthe claimasa matterof law;
4
b. The nominativeusedoctrinebarsthe claim asa matterof law;
5
would
c , As a matterof law, thereis no likelihoodthatconsumers
be confusedinto believingthatHallmark'sparodygreetingcard
6
is somehowsponsored
by or affiiiatedwith Hilton;
8
d. Hilton's claimfails asa matterof law because
Hilton hasnot and
9
cannotallegeany factsdemonstrating
thatHallmarkactedwith
10
"actualmalice"in usingHilton's nameandlikenesson the
l1
greetingcard;
t2
4,
Hilton's ihird claimfor relief,for infiingementof a registered
t-t
trademarkin the words"That'sHot," fails to statea claimuporlwhich
t4
relief canbe grantedfor the followingindependent
reasons:
a. The useof thewordso'that'shot" in the greetingcardwas
IJ
l5
l6
artisticallyrelevantto a work of protectedexpression
andthus
17
the FirstAmendmentbarstheclaim as a matterof law;
l8
b. The nominative
usedoctrinebarstheclaimasa matterof law;
l9
c. As a matterof law,thereis no likelihoodthatHallmark'suseof
20
thewords"that'shot" in a parodygreetingcardwould confuse
2l
consumers
into believingthatthe greetingcardis sponsored
by
22
or affiliatedwith Hilton,particularlybecauseHilton has
23
specifically
andunequivocally
useof the registeled
disclaimed
24
mark in connectionwith paperproducts,includinggreeting
25
cards.
26
The foregoinggroundsareaddressed
in detailin the attachedMemorandumof
27 PointsandAuthorities.This Motion is basedon thisNotice,the attached
28 Memorandumof PointsandAuthorities,theRequestFor JudicialNotice("RFJN"),on
SSAB
2
DEFENDANT'S
NOTICEOFMOTIONAND MOTIONTO DISMISS
I
all papers,pleadings,recordsandfiles in this case,on all othermattersof which
2 judicial noticemaybe taken,andon suchotherevidenceand/orargumentasmaybe
3 presented
to the Courton thehearingof this Motion.
4
Hallmarkrespectfullyrequests
thatthe CourtdismissHilton's Amended
5 Complaint,andeachclaim for relief containedtherein,with prejudice,
6
7
DATED: November2.2007
Sprr,LeNe
SHesrppnAnoNorr Bewolow LLP
8
9
10
1l
t2
"\ry
/
By:
t l,
LincolnD. Bandlow
Attornevsfor Defendant
HALLMARK CARDS.INCORPORATED
T4
l5
16
17
l8
t9
20
2l
22
24
25
26
2'7
28
SSAB
3
NOTICEOITMOTIONANDMOTIONTO DISMISS
DEFENDANT'S
TABLE OF CONTEhITS
I
2
a
J
4
I.
AND SUMMARYOF ARGUMENT........................1
INTRODUCTION
u.
STATEMENTOF FACTS...........,..
III.
STANDARDFORMOTIONTO DISMISS..........
IV.
HILTON'SCLAIMSALL FAIL AS A MATTEROF LAW
..........3
5
6
...................4
.........5
A.
Hallmark'sCardIs EntitledTo Full Protection
UnderThe
UnitedStatesandCalifomiaConstitutions'Guarantees
Of Free
E x pres s i on.... . . . , . . . . . .
. . . . . . ..5
B.
t1
Hilton'sFirstClaimFor CommonLaw Misappropriation
Of
RightOf PublicityFailsAs A MatterOf Law
................8
t2
L
Hilton'sRightOf PublicityClaimFailsBecause
The
HallmarkCardIs Expressive,
Not CommerciaI....................8
2.
The Transformative
NatureOf The HallmarkCard
Precludes
LiabilityFor iVlisappropriation
Of Hilton's
R i ghtO f P u b lic it y , . . . . . , , . , . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......9
3.
Hilton'sRiehtof PublicitvClairnFailsBecause
CommentaiesAnd Parodies
RelatingTo Her Are A
Matterof PublicInterest....
........,..........13
8
9
l0
13
T4
l5
T6
l1
t8
l9
20
C.
Hilton'sLanhamAct ClaimFailsAs A MatterOf Law
l.
Hilton'sLanhamAct ClaimIs BarredBv'Ihe First
A mendme .n.t. . . . . . . . . . .
..............:.
. . . . . . . . . ...1 4
2.
Hilton'sLanhamAct ClaimIs BarredBy The
Nominative
UseDoctrine..
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
......,.l4
3.
.,....,.15
To The ExtentHilton AssertsThatThe "Likelihoodof
Confusion"TestApplies,ThatAssertionShouldBe
Rejected
As a Matterof Law.
..............l5
a.
The "l,ikelihoodof Confusion"TestIs Not
AppropriateIn The Contextof Expressive
Works
LiketheHallmark
Card......,.
........16
SSAB
DEFENDANT'SNOTICE OPT,AOiIOT\]
AND MOTION TO DISMISS
b.
t
As a Matterof Law, Thereis No LikelihoodOf
........17
Confusion
Stemming
FromTheCard.
2
4.
a
J
4
D.
Hilton's LanhamAct ClaimFailsBecauseIt DoesNot
i8
AllegeActualMalice.
.......,..
5
Hilton's TrademarkInfringementClairnFailsAs A MatterOf
Law........
. . . . . ...1 9
6
l.
The Card'sUseOf TheWordso'That's
Hot" Is Protected
By theF'irstAmendment.
......19
2.
The Card'sUseOf The Words"That's Hot" Is Protected
UnderTheNominative
UseDoctrine.
........19
.....,....
3.
BecauseHallmark'sCardIs ProtectedBy The First
Amendment,TheLikelihoodOf ConfusionTestDoes
Not Apply And, Moreover,Hilton CannotShowAny
Likelihood
of Confusion...........
.....,.,...20
7
B
9
t0
11
t2
ta
IJ
V.
CONCLUSION
t4
t5
16
t7
l8
L9
2A
2T
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SSAB
ii
DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
,....,..27
FEDERALCASES
I
2
a
J
.tA
5
6
n
8
Baush v. CBS,Inc'
"-"kbF.5iip.'i+3
N.n.cal.iee3)
t3
...,............5,
Bery v. City of New York,
9zp.rdo8e
edcir.i996).........
........6
Burnett v. TwentiethCenturv Fox Film Corp,,
491F. Supp.
2d962(C.D.Ca1.2007)...:.....,..,....
5, 10,20,21
Car_d1oorys,
L.C. v. Maior Le_qg1te
BaseballPlayersAss'n,
9 5 F.3d959(l 0th C i r. 19 9 6 ) . . . . . . ,
: . . . . . . . 6 , 8 , 9i0, , 1 1 ,12 ,i 8
Dalv v.Viacom,Inc..
238F. Supp.2dlt18(N.D.Ca1.2002)
13
........9,
9 8.,9,,S.
2040[nc. v. RockStar Videos,Inc..
Entertainment
4 4 4F.S upp.2d
1012(C .D .Ca l.2 0 0 6 ) . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . : . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .......1 s
10
ll
ETTVCorp.v. Jireh Publ's.Inc.,
3 3 2F3d 9t5 (6rhC i r.200 3 )
. . . . . .1 4t6
,
1 2 Fox TelevisionStations,!nc. v. F.C.C.,
4 8 9F.3d444(20,| ^7)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . , . . . . , .
l3
Flarlg HqnltsComylqnications,
Inc. v. Connaughton,
l4
4 9 1U .S .657(1989)........... .
1 5 Hoffmanu. Capital Cities/ABC,Inc.,
-2 55F.3dI 180(9thC i r.20 0 1 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
HustlerMa4azinev. Falwell,
tt
4 8 5U .S .46 (1988)
. . . . ........3
. . . . ,,....1 8
. . . . . 81, 0 , 1 4 , l B,1 9
1.1
. . . . .......,6
l8 Kaplanv, Californiq,
'4 1 3U .S .l l s (1973)...... . . .
t9
20
. . . . . . . ..........6
Kournikova v. General Media CommunicationsInc..
278F.Supp.2d
Il l l (C.D.Cal.2003)
. . .....1 8
21 Leidholt v. L.F.P., Inc.,
8 6 0 F .2 d 8 9 0 (9 th C i r.1 9 88) .
22
23
Maltg I-u- Yq U{jLlgMountain P ro ductions,
3 63F .3 d 7 9 2 \9 th C i r.2 0 03)
...,.......8
.......5nt6, 17,1 9,21
24 Mattel, Inc, v. MCA Records,Inc.,
2 96 F ,3 d8 9 4 (g thC i r,2 0 02)
25
26
Mtller v. RarssBerrie & Co.. Inc..
8 66F .2 d9 3 1 (2 '" C i r. 1 9 89) .:..,..,.
27 New Kids on the Block v. NewsAmerica Publ'g, Inc.,
9 71 F .zd3 0 2 (g thC i r. i 9 92) .........
28
,,.,..8
9,13, 15,20,21
SSAB
iii
DEFENDANT'SNOTICEOF MO'IION ANDMOTION TO DISMISS
I
of America, Inc',
Pesasus
' "3t'F.Holdings v. VeterinaryCentqryq
...'........,'."4
iqes)
.:.,...,.........,....'.....'....
tis's(c.b.-Cat.
s,ipp.jt
2
a
J
I
5
6
I
8
9
10
ll
t2
Statesv. Jeruigan,
United
"""4{zFra105b-rfod;i.
..,..'....3
zoot)..
WrestlinsFederation Entert., Inc. v. BigDog Holdings, Inc.,
7,10,20
..:............."2063)
4i3lW.D.'Penn.
t80f,Surii.za
Zacchini
---43i v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting, Co.,
U.s.S;f"IIii7l............
STATECASES
ta
T4 ComedyIII Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup,Inc.,
l5
l6
t7
18
5, 6, B,9, 10, 11,12
2 5 C a l 4 th 3 8 7(2 0 0 1 ).. ,. ,. ,...
Dora
- - v. Frontline Video, Inc,,
..,..13
,.......
i5 iit. App.4rh536'(lee3)
v. Spellins-GoldbergProductions,
Guslielmi
--'2i
cai.j0800(1q191........7..
--- v. Sesaof'America,
L 9 Kirbv
14qCifAi| fiti+t
Q00q........ .
10
-.......e,
s, 12,14,16,le
20 Maheu v. CBS,Inc.,
''-i6l
2r
(lee8)......
a'eoz
Cai.aiip.l
v. TwentiethCenturyFox Film Corp.,
-'"s1-ciL
22 Polydoros
....,.,.
its1tee71
App,4ttr
23 Topps Company SharehglQgrs.v.Topps Company,
.lA
"'f'I0A.tA5{,
200t)......i.
aetDet-
v. DC Comics,
'ilcatVrft
25 Winter
88i (tdo3)
26
..'6,8
..,..........3
s, io, 12
ST.ATUTES
27 Lanh a m
A c t$ 4 3 ( a )1, 5U . S .C.
$1125(a)
2B
SSAB
'.'...'.13
tv
DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
.....' ,....',2,7
1
2
J
RULES
Federal
Ruleof Civil Procedure
l2(b)(6).... .......
l, 4
...............
OTHERS
4
Title Match: JesseVenturaand theRisht of Publicitv vs, ThePublic and
5 the FirstAmendment,
(2000)...........,....,...7
T Minn Intell.Frop."Rev.
117,139-140
6
n
I
B. Shank,A TokenOf Mv Affection:GreetinsCardsAnd American
Buinsess
Culture,C<ilumbii-University
Presd(2004)......
8
9
l0
1l
12
t3
l4
15
16
t7
18
t9
20
2I
22
23
24
25
26
)1
28
SSAB
v
DEFENDA}IT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
.........8
1
I
MEM9R$NDUM OF POINTSAND-AUTHSRITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTIOI!{AND SIIMMARY OF ARGUMENT
a
jet-setting
to theHilton
heiress
ParisWhitneyHilton("Hilton")is a privileged,
f
at themostlavishpartiesand
"celebutante"
4 familyfoflune,thecenter-of-attention
who,by herownadmission,
self-promoter
anda consummate
events,
5 exclusive
jobs" andservingthepublicto be her "private
working"manual,low-paying
6 considers
I
8
nightmare."AmendedComplaint("Cmpt.")J[tf6-8.
("Hallmark")overa
In this action,Hilton suesHallmarkCards,Incorporated
9 greetingcard(the"Card") captioned"Paris'sFirst Day as a Waitress,"which spoofs
l0
Hilton througha cartoonishdepictionof her in a waitressuniform,servinga mealto a
lt
it
andwarningthepatronnot to touchtheplatebecause
patronin a sit-downrestaurant
"that'shot" t2 is'ohot."Whenthepatronasks"What'shot?"Hiltonresponds,
tt
l1
obviouslyreferringto thehot plateof food. Thejoke,of course,is thatHilton claims
l4
to havecoinedthephrase"That'sHot" (Cmpt.fl9) which,asusedby Hilton,denotes
t 5 somethingastrendy,sexyor desirable.TheCard,however,commentson Hiiton's
16 imageby depictingherusingthephrase"that'shot" in its literalsenseasHilton serves
I 7 foodto anotherperson,ratherthanbeingwaitedon herself.
l8
r9
I{ilton apparentlybelievesthatshecancontrolnot only how sheis commented
o'that'S
hot." The law, however,doesnot allow
upon,but who canSaythe words
20 Hilton to quashsucha portrayal,nor doesit granther the powerto stopothersfrom
2l
claimsfail asa matterof
to pokefun at her. F{iltonos
usingher purportedcatchphrase
withoutleaveto amend.
22 iaw,andeachshouldbe dismissed
23
First,Hilton'scommonlaw rightof publicityclaimfailsasa matterof law and
(l) theCardmakesreference
to Hilton
for the followingreasonsr
24 mustbe dismissed
parodicpulpose,not for a commercialpurpose;(2) Hallmark'suse
25 for an expressive,
protectedandimmunefrom
andthereforefully constitutionally
26 is transformative
27 liabilify undertheFirstAmendmentandcontrollingCaliforniaSupremeCourt
28
SSAB
I
DEFENDANT'SNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
I
on Hilton falls within the "publicinterest"
precedent;
and(3) Hallmark'scommentary
to the commonlaw right of publicity.
2 and"public affairs"exceptions
Second,Hilton's LanhamAct claimfails asa matterof law for the following
J
a
4 reasons:(1) theuseof Hilton's nameandlikenessareartisticallyrslevantto the Card
5 andthusthe FirstAmendmentbarstheclaim;(2) the useis protectedby the
or recipientsof
6 nominativeusedoctrine;and(3) thereis no likelihoodthatpurchasers
"f
I
the Card'sparodyof
the Cardwould be confusedinto believingthatHilton endorsed
8 her.
9
Finally,Hilton's trademarkinfringementclaimbasedon theuseof the words
10 "that'shot" fails asa matterof law for thefollowingreasons:( 1) thephrase,asused
l1 by Hallmarkin the Card,wasnot usedasan identiflierof goodsor services,rather,it
to
T2 rvasusededitoriallyin its mostgenericsense,i,e.,"thathasa high temperature,"
(2) Hallmark'suseof the
l3 parodyHilton'suseof thephraseto indicatedesirability;
t4
andthe nominativeusedoctrine;and(3)
wordsis protectedby the First Amendrnent
l5
wouidbe confusedinto thinkingthatthe useof
thereis no likelihoodthat consumers
by or affiliatedwith Hilton,
hot" meansthatthe Cardwassponsored
1 6 the wordsoothat's
r7
anytrademarkrightsto the useof
particularlysinceHilton hasexpresslydisclairned
with theclassof goodsto whichthe Card
1 8 thephrase"that'shot" in connection
l9
20
zt
belongs.
upbringing,her
Hilton,hersilver-spoon
In short,Hallmark'sCardparodies
lavish lifestyie and her oft-repeated,vapid use of the catchphrase"that's hot." Like
22 the countlessother parodies,comic stripsand editorialsthat have taken aim at this self23 described"cultural icon" of society,the Card is fuliy protectedspeechunder the
24 United Statesand California Constitutions.The Card cannot,as a matter of law, give
25 riseto any of Hilton's claims.
26
Moreover, no further amendmentof the Amended Complaint can savethese
27 claims. Accordingly, the Motion shouldbe grantedand Hilton's pleading should be
28 dismissedwith prejudice.
SSAB
2
DEFENDANT'SNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
I
2
a
J
Hilton is a "wealthlyyoungsocialite"who routinelygarnersan immense
herselfin the Amended
amountof mediaattention.Cmpt.Jf7. Shedescribes
model,actressandrecordingartist"and
4 Complaintas"an Americanbusinesswoman,
5 listssomeof her work asa televisionandmotionpictureactress.Cmpt,'lTfl6-8.'
6,
In oneepisodeof the realitytelevisionprogramtitled TheSimpleLife, Hrlton
I
andher fellow socialiteNicoleRichiewereshown"struggl[ing]to do manual,low-
6
payingjobs suchas cleaningrooms,doingfarmwork, servingmealsin fast-food
t
andworking ascampcounselors."Cmpt.n7: seealsoFox Television
9 restaurants
Inc. v. F.C.C.,489F.3d444,468(2007)(in TheSimpleLife,Rrchieand
1 0 Stations,
1 1 Hiltonare"two spoiled,rich youngwomenfromBeverlyHills who copewith life on a
the publicis
t2 farm"), In so doing,thesetwo childrenof privilegefind thatoose.rv'ing
t3 theirprivatenightmare."Cmpt.1T8. Theentirepremiseof the showis, of course,that
l4
these"wealthyyoungsocialites"wouldnot be caughtdeaddoingsuchwork in real
15 life. Onefeatureof that showwasFliltonandRichie'srepeateduseof thephrase
t 6 o'that'shot" to describejust abouteverythingtheyfoundto be interesting.In July
LI
2A04,Hilton filed an intentto useapplicationfor thephrasewith the UnitedStates
however,
18 PatentandTrademarkOffice for numerousclassesof goods. Subsequently,
disclaimedany intentto usethe mark in
T 9 Hilton specificallyandunequivocally
20 connectionwith paperproductssuchasgreetingcards,i.e.,class16. Eventually,in
2l
only with specificclothing
20A7,the rnarkwasregisteredfor usein connection
22 productsin Class25. Cmpt.'ll1l9& 30;RFIN,Ex. B.
23
greetingcards,
Hallmarkis a Missouricompanythatcreatesandmanufactures
"Paris'sFirstDay asa Waitress."As Hilton
24 includingtheCard,whichis captioned
25
in courtdecisions.SeeToppsCompany
26 ' Hilton's notorietyhasgarneredreferences
(DeL2A07)(sarcasticaliy
notingthatboard
A.zd
58,86
v. ToppsCompany,926
Shareholders
2-t of directorswasfreeto "shoplike ParisHilton"); UnitedStatesv. Jernigan,492F.3d 1050,
thepoor qualityof a videotape,Courtsaidit "no
1061n. 12(gtbCir. 2007)(in discussing
28 moreidentifies bankrobber]thanParisHilton")'
[a
SSAB
3
NOTICEOFMOTIONAND MOTIONTO DISMISS
DEFENDANT'S
I
overa cartoon
concedes,
the Cardshowsa photograph
of Hilton's fbce"superimposed
2 of a waitressservingfood to a patron,alongwith the dialogue:'Don't touchthat,it's
J
a
a
hot.' 'What'shot?' 'That'shot."' Cmpt.$ 10. Theinsideof theCardsayso'Have
4
smokin'hot birthday" andthe backof thecardprominentlydesignates
the Cardas
5 beingonefrom the Hallmark"Saturdays"line of cards,with the Hallmarkslogan"The
6 casualway to connectfrom Flallmark."RFJN,Ex. A.2
On September
7,2007,Hiltonfiled suitagainstHallmark,allegingthattheCard
I
8 (1) misappropriated
her right of publicity;(2) falselydesignated
its origin underthe
9 LanhamAct; and(3) infringedherfederallyregisteredtrademarkin thewords"That's
10 Hot" for useon clothing.Thoseclaimscannotsurive thismotionto dismiss.
11 ilI.
STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS
t2
A motionto dismissunderRule l2(b)(6)of the FederalRulesof Civil Procedure
t 3 teststhe legalsufficiencyof theclaimsasserted
in thecomplaint.PegasusHoldingsv.
t 4 Veterinary
(C.D.Cal. 1998).
Centers
of Americe,Inc.,38F. Supp.2d
I 158,1159-60
l5 The scopeof reviewon a motionto dismissfor failureto statea claimis generally
l6 limitedto thecontentof thecomplaint.Id. TheCourtmay,however,consider
17 exhibitssubmittedor referenced
in thecomplaintandmattersthatmaybejudicially
l8 noticedpursuantto FederalRuleof Evidence201. Id. at 1160.
l9
ooDismissal
underRule 12(bX6)is appropriate
whenit is clearthatno relief
20 couldbe grantedunderanysetof factsthatcouldbe provenconsistentwith the
21 allegationssetforth in thecomplaint."Burnettv. TwentiethCenturyF'oxFilm Corp., .
(citationomttted).Althoughallegations
22 491F. Supp.2d 962,966(C.D. CaL.2007)
of
23 materialfactmustbe acceptedastrue,"fc]onciusoryallegationsof law and
aA
L-t
unwarranted
inferences
areinsufficientto defeata motionto dismissfor fbilureto state
25 a claim." In re VeriFoneSec.Litig., I I F.3d865,868(9thCir. 1993).
26
27
'Hilton attachedto the AmendedComplainta copyof the front andbackof the Card,but did
28 not attacha copy of the inside. The entireCardis attachedto the RFJN asExhibit A,
SSAB
4
DEFENDANT,SIr*OTICEOF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
"summarydispositionis particularly
favoredin cases... involvingFirst
I
z
Amendment
rights." Baughv. CBS,lnc,,828F.Supp.745,752(N.D.Cal. 1993)
J
a
(dismissing
rnotionto dismiss).Additionally,
misappropriation
claimson defendants'
4
protracted
unnecessarily
the CaliforniaSupremeCourthasstatedthat"because
rights,
of FirstAmendment
5 litigationwouldhavea chillingeffectupontheexercise
6 speedyresolutionof casesinvolvingfreespeechis desirable."lilinter v. DC Comics,
4
I
30 Cal.4th881,891(2003)(intemalquotesomitted);Kirby v. Segaof America,144
47,54 (2006)(same).
8 cal.App,4"'
9
l0
l1
t2
IV.
TIILTON'S CLAIMS ALL FAIL AS A MATTER OF LAW
A.
Hallmark's Card [s EntitledTo Full ProtectionUnder The United
Statesand CaliforniaConstitutions'GuaranteesOf FreeExpression
parody,"heavy-handed
It is well established
thatentertainment,
lampooning"
t3 and"subtlesocialcriticism,"areall entitledtofull constitutionalprotection,Comedy
(2001).3
t4 III Produettons,Inc. v. GorySaderup,Ine.,25 Cal.4th 387, 398-4A6-07
1 5 Indeed,"popularentertainment
protectionasthe
is entitledto the sameconstitutional
1 6 expositionof politicalideas."Polydorosv. TwentiethCenturyFox Film Corp.,67 Cal.
1 1 App.4th 318,324(1997).Theprotection
for entertainment
restson two propositions:
1 8 first, "[t]he line betweenthe jnformingandthe entertaining
is too elusivefor the
t9
protectionof the basicright ... Whatis oneman'sarnusement,
teachesanother
20 doctrine;"andsecond,"entertainment,
asa modeof self-expression,
is entitledto
2l
protectioninespectiveof its contributionto the marketplace
constitutional
of ideas."
22 ComedyIII,25 Cal. 4th at 398(citingGuglielmiv. Spelling-Goldherg
Productions,Z5
t\
^a
.J
Cal.3d 860,870(1979)).4A work of visualandliteraryart is entitledto full
1A
LA
25
26
27
28
' Seealso Schadv, Borough of Mt Ephraim,452 U.S. 61, 65 (1981) ("fe]ntertainment,as
well as political and ideological speech,is protected")Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard
BroadcastingCo.,433 U.S. 562, 578 (1977) ("[t]here is no doubt that entertainmentas well
as news, enjoys First Amendment protection").
4
Although a concurring opinion, "Chief JusticeBird's views in Guglielmi commandedthe
supportof the majority of the court." ComedyIII,25 Cal. 4th at396 n.7.
SSAB
5
DEFENDANT'SNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
I
I
as "a nalrow,
protection,evenif "it conveysno discernable
message,"
constitutional
2
protection."'
is not a conditionof constitutional
succinctlyarticulablemessage
3
ComedyIII,25 Cal.at399.
4
and
The scopeof protectionfor entertainment
extends,for instance,
to oocartoons
which "haveplayeda prominentrole in publicandpoliticaldebate
5 caricatures,"
6 throughoutour nation'shistory." Cardtoons,
L,C. v. Major LeagueBaseballPlayers
7 Ass'n,95F.3dg5g,969( 1OthCir. 1996).sAdditionally,theprotectionextendsto
8 parodiesof celebrities"as an especiallyvaluablemeansof expression."Id. at972.
9 "Becausecelebritiesarean importantpartof our publicvocabulary,a parodyof a
1 0 celebrity... exposes
theweakness
in
of theideaor valuethatthecelebritysymbolizes
ll
society,"Id.; ComedyIII,25 Cal. 4that 406(statingthat"the conclusion[in
t2 Cardtoons]that works parodyingandcaricaturingcelebritiesareprotectedby the First
1-l
Amendmentappearsunassailable"\;World WrestlingFederationEntert,,Inc. v. Big
1'
Dog Holdings,Inc,280 F.Supp.2d
413,445(W.D.Penn.2003)(parodythat"poke[d]
TJ
l+
l5 fun at celebritiesandsocietaliconsis an importantform of entertainment
and
16 expressive
commentarythat deserves
FirstAmendmentprotection").
t7
The Cardtoonscourtfoundthatparodybaseballcardswereprotectedunderthe
18 FirstAmendmentregardless
whetherthe cardswerea traditionalmediumof
t 9 expression
. Id. at 969.("[E]ven if thetradingcardsarenot a traditionalmediumof
20 expression,
theynonetheless
containprotectedspeech").A greetingcard,like theone
2l
at issuehere,is certainlyasexpressive
if not moreexpressive
thana baseballtrading
22 card.SeeE. Skold,TitleMatch:JesseVenturaand theRightof Publicityvs,The
23
24 s
SeealsoHr.tstlerMagazinev, Falwell,485U.S. 46,53-56(1938)(holclingthatcartoonists,
parodists,
caricaturists
andsatiristseryoyFirstAmendmentprotection);Kaplanv. California,
25
413U.S, I 15,I l9- 120( 1973)("pictures,
films,paintings,
drawings,andengravings...
have
26 FirstAmendment
protection");
Beryv. Cityof New York,97F.3d689, 695(2d Cir. 1996)
("[v]isual
art is aswide rangingin its depictionof ideas,conceptsandernotionsasany book,
27
treatise,pamphletor otherwriting , andis similarlyentitledto full FirstAmendment
28 protection").
SSAB
6
DEFENDANT'SNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMiSS
I Minn.lntell.Prop.Rev.1t7,139-140(2000)
1 PublicandtheFirst Amendmenf,
to greetingcards,and it is easy
2 ("Skold') ("Tradingcardsseemparticularlyanalogous
a
1
to imaginethatgreetingcardswouldalsofall in the realmof formsof expression
4 deservingof First Amendmentprotection").Both tradingcardsandgreetingcards
to the purchaser.Greetingcards,however,includea rnuchwider
5 conveya message
6 varietyof messages.Indeed,thevery functionof a greetingcardis for onepersonto
oftenconsistsof observations
to another,andpartof thatmessage
7 conveya message
8 regardingsituationsor individualsin whichthe recipientis likely to be interested.
including
9 Greetingcardsthat commentuponpublicfiguressuchascelebrities,
1 0 commentswhich areunflattering,areclearlyexpressive.Moreover,greetingcards
ll
invite additionalspeech,encouraging
thepersonwho selectsthe cardto contributehis
1'2 or her own expression.
t4
Thus,it is no surprisethatthe U.S.SupremeCourthasrecognized
that greeting
cardsarea vehicleof expression,
holdingthattheyareo'theembodimentof humor,
l5
praise,regretor someothermessage
in a pictorialandliteraryarrangement."Roth
l6
GreetingCardsv. UnitedCardCompany,429F.2d I 106,1I 10( 1970);seealsoMiller
l3
Berrie& Co.,Inc., 866F.2d931,94A12'dCir, 1989)(same).As onelegal
t 7 v. Rarss
18 commentator
wrote:
l9
z0
2T
22
23
24
25
26
z7
2B
for physicalqualitiessuchascard
[G]reetingcardsarenot purchased
stockor printingqualityasmuchasfor the message
andthe
successful
deliveryof thatmessage
throughthe*visual
effect...
fG]reetingcardsaretraditionallydesignednot only to conveya
message
from producerto purchaser,
but aisofrom the purchaser
to
the recipient.This is especiallytruewith cardsemployingparody,as
it is a lessdirectform of communication
anda personmay receivea
totally differentmessage
thanthe authorconveyed.A consumerrnay
purchasea cardandgive it to anotherwith whomtheyhavea personal
relationship
thatallowsfor a sharedmessage
completelydifferent
from [the cardcreator's]originalmessage.This message
maybe one
of contempt,ratherthanfun andhumor. Then[the cardwriter's] selfis transformed
into socialcriticism.
expression
SSAB
7
DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTiON AND MOTION TO DISMISS
Of My Affection:GreetingCardsAnd
Skoldat 138,I42; see alsoB. Shank,A Tolcen
2 AmericanBusinessCulture,ColumbiaUniversityPress(2004),bookjacket (greeting
I
J
4
cardsare'oanintegralpart of Americanlife andculture").
Its
expression.
asprotected
Hallmark'sCardis easilyrecognized
and parody,
of Hilton in a fancifulsettingis not only entertainment
5 characterization
andcriticismof Hilton'slifestyleandbeliefsystem,Thus,
6 but alsosocialcommentary
of the F'irstAmendmentof the U.S.
7 the Cardis subjectto the full protections
andArticle l, Section2 of theCaliforniaConstitution.6
8 Constirution
9
B.
Hilton's First Claim For CommonLaw MisappropriationOf Right
10
Of Publicity Fails As A Matter Of Law
ll
1.
t2
l3
Hilton's Right Of PublicityClaim Fails BecauseThe Hallmark
Card Is Expressive,Not Commercial
In Califomia,a plaintiff suchasHilton who allegesa commonlaw claimfor
l4
right of publicitymust"establisha directconnection
betweentheuseof [herJnameor
l5
likenessanda commercialpurpose."Polydoros,67 Cal.App. 4th at322 (emphasis
in
T6 original). In this context,commercialspeechis limitedto thatwhich"doesno more
t7
thanproposea commerciaitransaction"
and
suchasadvertisements,
endorsements
l8
commercials,
Hoffmanv. CapitalCities/ABC,
1nc.,255F.3d I 180,1184(9thCir.
1 9 2001)(citationomitted);Comedy
III,25 Cal.4th at396(drawingsof ThreeStooges
20 soldon t-shirtswerenot commercialspeechbecause
theywerenot 'oadvertisements
for
2l
or endorsement
of a product").Because
right of publicitylawsweremeantto apply
22 solelyto suchcommercialspeech,it logicallyfollowsthat an "informativeor cultural"
23
24 6
ThatHalhnarksellsthe Carddoesnot obviateFirctArnendment
protection:"[t]he factthat
2 5 expressivematerialsaresold neitherrendersthe speechunprotectednor altersthe level of
g5 F,3dat 970 (citationomitted);Time,
protectionunderthe First Amendment."Cardtoons,
26 Inc. v. Hill, 385u.S, 374,397(1967)("[t]hatbooks,newspapers,
andmagazines
are
published
and
profit
sold for a
doesnot preventthemfrom beinga form of expression
whose
27
libertyis safeguarded
by the FirstAmendment"');
Leidhottv. L.F.p,,lnc.,860F.2d890,895
2 8 (9thCir. 1988)(sarne).
SSAB
8
DEFENDANT'SNOTICE OF MOT]ON AND MOTION TO DISMISS
I
useis o'immune"frorniiability. NewKids on theBlockv. NewsAmericaPubl'g, Inc.,
2
745F.Supp,1540,1546(C.D.Cal.1990),aff'd 971F.2d302(9thCir. 1992).7
a
J
Hallmark'sCardis clearlyandobviouslynot an advertisement
or endorsement
A
.?
for anotherproductor service. TheCarditselfbearsandconveysthe message.Thus,
5 the HallmarkCard,andits reference
not commerciai,speech.
to Hilton,is expressive,
6 SeeCardtoons,gsF.3dat g7A("Cardtoons
tradingcards. .. arenot commercialspeech
I
- theydo not merelyadvertiseanotherunrelatedproduct"), Accordingly,Hilton's first
8 claimfailsasa matterof law.
9
l0
t1
II
2,
The TransformativeNatureOf The Hallmark Card Precludes
Liability For MisappropriationOf Hilton's Right Of Publicity
The CaliforniaSupremeCourthaslongrecognized
thatthe right of publicity
t 2 "hasnot beenheldto outweighthevalueof freeexpression
." Guglielmi,25 Cal.3dat
13 872(Bird, C.J.concuning)(affirmingthedismissalof right of publicityclaim at
t 4 demuner stageon freespeechgrounds);
seealsoDaly v.Viacom,
lnc.,238F. Supp.2d
15 I i I 8, I 123CN.D.Cal.2002)(dismissing
commonlaw right of publicityclaimagainst
16 expressive
work asbeingbarredby the FirstAmendment)."Any otherconclusion,"
t 7 warnedChiefJusticeBird, "would allow reportsandcommentaries
on the thoughts
l8 andconductof publicandprominentpersonsto be subjectto censorship
underthe
r9 guiseof preventingthe dissipationof thepublicityvalueof a person'sidentity."
20 Guglielmi,25 Cal.3dat 872:'seealso ComedyIII,25 Cal.4th at 403("the right of
2l publicitycannoto
consistentwith the FirstAmendment,
be a right to controlthe
22 celebrity'simageby censoringdisagreeab
le portrayal
s").
23
To safeguard
freeexpression,
the CaliforniaSupremeCourtdevisedthe
24 transformative
usetestto o'determine
whethera work merelyappropriates
a celebrity's
25 economicvalue,andthusis not entitledto FirstAmendmentprotection,or hasbeen
26
27
' Ironically,JudgeKozinskipreempted
Hilton's catchphrase,
describingTheNew Kids On
28 The Block as"one of todav'shottestmusicalacts."New Kids.97l F.2dat 304,
J SA B
9
DEFENDANT'SNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
1
I
into a creativeproductthattheFirstAmendmentprotects."I(inter v, DC
transformed
Court'sbalancing
2 Comics,30Cal.4th881,888(2003),UndertheCaliforniaSupreme
a
J
outweighsHilton's publicityrights.
test,Hallmark'sexpression
overwhelmingly
4 "Oncethe celebritythrustshimselfor herselfforwardinto the limelight,"asHilton has
5 mostcertainlydone,"the FirstAmendmentdictatesthattheright to commenton,
usesof the celebriryimagemustbe given
6 parody,lampoon,andmakeotherexpressive
7 broadscope." ComedyIII,25 Cal.4that 403. Indeed,"prominenceinvitescreative
R
at972
comment."Guglielmi,25Cal.3dat 869;seealsoBurnett,49lF.Supp.Zd
risk of
9 ("publicfigures,who seekthepublicspotlightmustaccepttheconcomitant
l0
publicridiculein the form of parody");WorldWrestlingFederation,2S0F.Supp.2dat
ll
445 (plaintiffs'"celebritystatus... makethemprimetargetsof satireandparody");
t2
Skoldat 148("oneis to expectcriticismwhenoneenjoyscelebritystafus").
't4
IJ
t4
Therearesignificantreasons
criticismandparody,
to protectcommentary,
particularlyof celebritieslike Hilton. "Becausecelebritiestakeon publicmeaning,the
l5 appropriationof their likenesses
mayhaveimpofiantusesin uninhibiteddebateon
t 6 publicissues,particularlydebates
aboutcultureandvalues."Comedy
III,25 Cal.4th
T 7 at 397;seealsoCardtoons,
99 F.3dat972. Moreover,"because
celebrities
takeon
1B personaimeaningsto manyindividualsin society,the creativeappropriationof
l9 celebrityimagescanbe an importantavenueof individualexpression."ComedyIII,
20 25 CaL 4th at 397, Indeed,ComedyIII is particularlyon point here:
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Entertainment
andsportscelebritiesarethe leadingplayersin our
PublicDrama. We tell tales,bothtall andcautiotr?r"y,
aboutthem.
We monitortheir corningsandgoings,theirmisstepsandheartbreaks.
We copytheir mannerisms,
theirstyles,their modesof conversation
andof consumption.Whetheror not celebritiesare'thechiefagents
of moralchangein theunited States,'
theycertainlyarewidely used*
far morethanareinstitutionallyanchoredelites- to symbolize
individualaspirations,
groupidentities,andculturalvalues.Their
imagesarethusimportantexpressive
andcommunicative
resources:
the peculiar,yet familiaridiom in whichwe conductafair portionof
our culturalbusinessandeverydayconversation.
SSAB
l0
DEFENDANT'SNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
I
2
1d.(emphasis
added,citationsomitted).
is Hilton's
rightto expression
againstHallmark'sconstitutional
Juxtaposed
a
J
economicinterest,manifestedin the right of publicity. The right of publicity"is
4
essentiallyan economicright," and"depictionsof celebritiesamountingto little more
5 thanthe appropriation
of the celebrity'seconomicvaluearenot protected,"Id. at 400,
for theiridentitiesto
wiil seldomgivepermission
6 403. Horvever,"[s]incecelebrities
be parodied,grantingthemcontrolovertheparodicuseof their identitieswouldnot
95 F.3dat974.
8 directlyprovidethemwith anyadditionalincome."Cardtoons,
from ridiculeand
9 Instead,it would "only allow [celebrities]to shieldthemselves
to morebroadlyenforcetheir publicity
1 0 criticism," Id. Thatis, allowingcelebrities
ll
rightswouldcreatea significantdangerthatthis right mightbe usedfor the censorship
of
t2 of eonstitutionallSr-proteeted
speech.ComedyIII,25 Cal.4th at398. Thus,because
1a
t1
the "very importanceof celebritiesin society"courtsmustnot allow theright of
1 4 publicityto be usedasa vehiclefor "censoringsignificantexpression
by suppressing
1 5 alternativeversionsof celebrityimagesthatareiconoclastic,
irreverent,or otherwise
T6 attemptto redefinethe celebrity'smeaning."Id. at 397.
ln ComedyIII,the CalifomiaSupreme
Courtfollowedthel'enth Circuit's
18 oounassailable"
conclusionthat"worksparodyingandcaricaturingcelebritiesare
11
LI
19 protectedby the FirstAmendment."ComedyIII,25 Cal.4th at 406(discussing
20 Cardtoons,95 F',3dat969-976).The CalifomiaSupremeCourt,borrowingfrom the
2l
fair usetestin copyrightlaw, heldthat"whena work containssignificant
2Z transformative
elements,"- asopposedto a "literaldepictionor imitationof a
23 celebrity"- the transformative
work is "not only especiallyworthyof First
.A
./-+
Amendment
protection,
but it is alsolesslikelyto interferewith theeconomicinterest
25 protectedby the right of publicity." Id. at 405. The Courtheld,by way of example,
26 that"worksof parodyor otherdistortionsof thecelebrityfigurearenot, from the
27 celebrityfbn's viewpoint,goodsubstitutes
for conventional
depictionsof the celebrity
28
3SAB
ll
DEFENDANT'S NOTiCE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
andthereforedo not generallythreatenmarketsfor celebritymemorabiliathatthe right
2 of publicityis designedto protect."Id. (citingCardtoons,95 F.3d at974)'
Thus,worksthat parodya ceiebrityandmanipulatethe contextin which
3
I
andthereforefully protectedunder
transformative
celebritiesappearwill be considered
andimmunefrom rightof publicityliability. SeeComedyIII,25
5 theFirstAmendment
4
6
Fl
wherethe Califorria
Cal.4th at 408-409.This principlewasreaffirmedin Winte.r,
who wereo'less-than-subtle
SupremeCourtheldthat fictionalcomicbookcharacters
8 evocationsof [famousmusicians]JohnnyandEdgarWinter" couldnot serveasthe
the depictionsof piaintiffswere"distorted
9 basisfor right of publicityclaimsbecause
10 for purposesof lampoon,parody,or caricature."Winter,30Cal.4th at 890 (citing
lt
Cardtoonsandnotingthatthe "comicbooksaresimilarto thetradingcards
t',
caricaturingandparodyingprominentbaseballplayersthathavereceivedFirst
ta
Arnendmentprotection");seealsoKirby,144 Cal.App. 4th at 59 (right of publicity
LL
IJ
T4 andLanhamAct claimsby celebrityleadsingerof group"Deee-Lite"againstmakero
t 5 videogamethat allegedlycontainedcharacterbasedon plaintiffbarredby Firsl
and
andsettingweretransformative
l6 Amendmentbecauseof changesin characteristics
l- l
LI
ComedyIII,25 Cal.4th at 408-09
to createnewexpression")
"addedcreativeelements
throughtheuseof "distortionandthe careful
t 8 (statingthatcelebrityimagespresented
i9 manipulationof context"thatmakean "ironic socialcommenton thedehurnanization
20 of celebrityitself'would be entitledto FirstAmendmentprotection).
2l
photograph
Hallmark'suseof Hilton'simage- placingan oversized
of Hilton's
22 faceovera cartoonbody,injectingherinto an absurdsituation,andcreatinga fictional
23 dialogueto accompanythe visualart- is undoubtedlytransformative.The
24 combinationof a photographandcartoonaswell asthe distortedimageis neithera
25 literaldepictionof Hilton nor an acceptable
substitute
to her fansfor conventional
26 depictions.This transformative
useon the HallmarkCardclearlyparodiesHilton.
27 TheCarddepictsHilton asa waitress(completewith standardissuewaitressapron,
z8 nametagandovenmitt), performinga servicejob which Hilton admitsin her
SSAB
t2
DEFENDANT'S
NOTICEOFMOTIONAND MOTIONTO DISMISS
Unlike Ifte
AmendedComplaint is her own "privatenightmare."Cmpt.lT'117-8.
2 SimpteLift episodereferencedin Paragraph8 of the AmendedComplaint,the Card
servinga patron,ratherthanasa car
J
depictsHilton working in a sit-downrestaurant
I
a
4
hop at a fastfoodjoint. The CardfurtherparodiesHilton's "modef]of conversation"
5 by showingherusingher phrase"that'shot" it in its literalsenseratherthanthewayin
6 whichsheis knownfor usingit. TheCardis a clearspoofof Flilton'slifestyleand
4
I
idiom. Hilton thereforecannotwardoff criticism,commentandparodyby invoking
I
the right of publicity. Accordingly,her claimmustfail.
9
10
ll
3.
Hilton's Right of PublicityClaim FailsBecauseCommentaries
And ParodiesRelatingTo Her Are A Matter of Public Interest
UnderCalifornia'scommonlaw causeof actionfor rightof publicity,"a
t2 defenseunderthe FirstAmendmentis providedwherethepublicationor dissernination
l3
at ll22; seealsoNewKids,
of mattersis 'in thepublicinterest."'Daly,238F.Supp.Zd
t4
971F.2dat 309-10(Ninth Circuitheldthatthepublicinterestdefenseis a "complete'o
1 5 defenseandprovides"extrabreathingspace"evenbeyondthe First Amendment).8
16
l7
Publishersaregrantedwide latitudeunderthe commonlaw "public interest"
exceptionto protectfreeexpression.Protectionis providedfor thosemattersthat"the
1 8 publicis interested
in andconstitutionally
entitledto knowabout,"suchas "'things,
t9
peopleandeventsthat affectit."' Baugh,828F.Supp.at754 (quotingDora v.
2A FrontlineVideo,Inc., 15 Cal.App.4th 536,546(1993)).In Dora thecourtheldthat
2l
"public interestattachesto peoplewho by their accomplishments
or modeof
22 living...createbonafide attentionto theiractivities.'o
Dora, 15Cal.App. 4th at 542.
23
Fliltonindisputablyattractsvastamountsof attentionandpublicity* muchof it
24 asa resultof her own effortsandactions.Seeminglyeveryaspectof her life is fodder
25
26 t t!" courtmaydismisscommonlaw right of publicity
claimsat the pleadingsstagebasedon
. SeeMah.euv. CBS,Inc.,'2}l Caf. ep[. 3d 662,
27 q!!li: affairsandpublic interestexceptions
28
676-77(1998)(affirmingdismissalon demurrerof right of publicityclaims),
SSAB
l3
DEFENDANT'SNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
I
* from her televisionappearances,
to
for the pressandfor watercoolerconversations
2 the lavishlifestylesheleads,to herpartyhopping,to her romancesandsexual
a
1
(whethervideotapedor not),to herhigh fashionclothing,to her idioms,to
escapades
A
"t
(andcontroversial
earlyrelease)andto variousotherlegalissuesher incarceration
5 includingeventhe fiiing of this lawsuit,Along with thatnotorietyinevitablycomes
6 socialcomment,criticism,spoofsandparody* andfor Hilton, it hascomein droves.
SeeDeclarationof LincolnBandlowfiled in connectionwith the conculrentlyfiled
8 SpecialMotionto StrikeComplaintUnderC.C.P.$ 425.16.Hilton is a universally
9 knownpublic figure. Thus,shecertainlyqualifiesasa matterof "public interest"or
1 0 "public affairs"underthe broaddefinitionsof thoseterms.The protectionfor speech
1 1 on suchtopicsis "complete"andbarsHilton's right of publicityclaim.
I2
13
14
C.
HiltonosLanhamAct Claim FailsAs A Matter Of Law
1.
Hilton's LanhamAct Claim Is Barred Bv The First
Amendment
l5
Hilton,essentially
echoingtheallegations
in herrightof publicityclaim,alleges
t6
in her secondclaim thatthe Card's"useof her nameandidentity"violatesthe Lanham
I7 Act. Cmpt.1123.As courtshaverecognized,
"[t]he LanhamAct is the federal
1 8 equivalent
of a right of publicityclaim." Kirby,I44 Cat,App.4th at 57. Accordingly,
l 9 the sameFirst Amendmentdefenses
thatbara right of publicityclaimserveequallyto
20 defeata claimundertheLanhamAct. Id. at 6I-62(holdingthatbecause
plaintiffs
,2 1 rightof publicityclaims"aresubjectto a FirstAmendment
defensen'her..Lanham
Act
22 claimis alsobarred");Haffman,2ssF.3dat i 183(claimsfor violationof
LanhamAct,
23 commonlaw andstatutoryright of publicityand"unfair competition"
all barredby
24 FirstAmendment);
ETwcorp,v.Jirehpubrs,
Inc.,332F.3d9r
5,g37(6thcir.2003)
2 5 (right of publicityandLanhamAct claimsbarredby Firsr
Amendment).Accordingly,
2 6 for the reasonssetforth abovein SectionsIV(A)-(B), the First
Amendmentprotections
2 7 affordedthe card defeatHilton's LanhamAct claimas
a matterof law.
28
SSAB
14
DEFENDANT'SNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
I
I
2,
2
J
Hilton's LanhamAct Claim Is Barred By The NominativeUse
Doctrine
"a
The nominativeusedoctrinepreventsa trademarkholderfrom appropriating
+A
descriptiveterm for his exclusiveuseandsopreventothersfrom accuratelydescribing
)
a characteristic
of theirgoods."NewKids,97l F.2dat 306. Indeed,theNinthCircuit
held,o'itis oftenvirtuallyimpossibleto referto a particularproductfor purposesof
6
n
comparison,
criticism,point of reference
or anyothersuchpurposewithoutusingthe
8 mark." Id. at 309. Moreover,theNinth Circuithaswamedthatcelebritiescannotbe
9 permittedto "usethe trademarklawsto preventthepublicationof an unauthorized
...
1 0 biographyor to censorall parodiesor satireswhichusetheir name."Id.
il
Here,the "mark" at issuein Hilton's LanhamAct claim,her nameandlikeness,
rz
wereusedto expressa commentary
andparodyof Hilton. Hilton's claim cannotbe
l3
maintainedin the faceof the LanhamAct's nominativeusedoctrine.Mattel v.
1 4 lvalkingMountainProductions,363F.3d792,810 (9th Cir. 2003)("Walking
1 5 Mountain")(nominativeusedoctrinebarredclaim: defendant"usedMattel'sBarbie
1 6 figureandheadin his worksto conjureup associations
of Mattel,while at the same
II
time to identifyhis own work, whichis a criticismandparodyof Barbie',);f.,S.,S.
1 8 Entertainment
2000Inc, v. RockStar Videos,hnc.,444F.Supp.2d1012,1043(C.D.
t9
Cal. 2006)("Any visualwork thatseeksto offer an artisticcommentary
on a particular
2A subjectmustuseidentifiablefeaturesof thatsubjectso thatthe commentarv
will be
2 t understood
andappreciated
by theconsumer,'),
22
23
.\l
3-
To The ExtentHilton AssertsThat The 66likelihoodof
confusion" TestApplies,That AssertionshoutdBe Rejected
As a Matter of Law
25
Hilton allegesthat the public may believethat the Card is ooin
some way
26 authorizedby, endorsedby, sponsoredby, or associatedwith',
Hilton.
cmpt.ll22.
The Ninth Circuit and other courtshave madeit clear,however,
that the.'likelihood of
28 confusion" test is not appropriatein the contextof expressive
works like the Hallmark
11
JSAB
l5
DEFENDANT'SNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION 1'O
DISMISS
I
Card, Moreover,giventheparndicnatureof theCard,thereis no likelihoodthat
will be confused.
2 consumers
J
The "Likelihood of Corqfusion"TestIs Not AppropriateIn
4
The Conturt of ExpressivelVorksLike the Hullmark Card
5
the defendanthas
The likelihoodof confusiontestis not appropriate'owhere
6 articulateda colorableclaimthattheuseof a celebrity'sidentityis protectedby the
considerthe interestsprotected
First Amendment"becausethetest"fails to adequately
d
Kirby, 144Cal.App.4that 57
by the FirstAmendment."ETW,332F,3dat.926-28:
its
speech,
9 n.4. TheNinthCircuitsimilarlyhasheldthat,in thecaseof expressive
l0
traditionallikelihoodof confusiontest"failsto accountfor thefliil weightof the
ll
public'sinterestin freeexpression
." Mattel,Inc. v. MCA Records,Inc., 296 F.3d894,
t2 900 (9thCir. 2002)("Mattel') (songparodyusingtheterm"Barbie"wasnot
l3
trademarkinfringement).Indeed,"tradernark
rightsdo not entitlethe ownerto quash
1^
t+
an unauthorized
useof the markby anotherwho is communicating
ideasor expressing
l5
a pointof view." Id; WalkingMountain,353F.3dat 807(whenclaiminvolvesuseof
l6
markthatraisesFirstAmendment
issues,
likelihoodof confusiontestis not used).
T1
ln Mattel,defendants
produceda songnamed"BarbieGirl" in which a band
memberimpersonates
Barbieandtherearecountless
usesin the songof the name
1 9 "Barbie." Mattelclaimedthatthe songconfusedconsumers
into thinkingMattelwas
l8
20 affiliatedwith it. Mattel,296F.3dat 899. TheNinthCircuit,howevero
concluded,
of FirstAmendmentprotectionoutweighed
2 T usinga two-prongtest,thatthe importance
22 anyrisk of confusionbetweenMattel'sproductandthe songtitle: the useof the mark
(1) it wasartisticailyrelevantto the
23 wasprotectedby the First Amendmentbecause
.lA
zL+
work and(2) it wasnot otherwise
specifically
misleading
asto sponsorship
or
25 endorsement- First, the court held that the use of the Barbie mark was clearly relevant
26
to the underlying workoi.e,, a songthat "pokes fun at Barbie and the values that
." Mattel,296 F,3d at 901. Second,the song title
27 [defendant]contendsshe represents
28
SSAB
t6
DEFENDANT'S
NOTICEOFMOTIONAND MOTIONTO DISMISS
I
did not explicitlyrnisleadasto thesourceof thework: "it doesnot,explicitlyor
2 otherwise,suggestthatit wasproducedby Mattel." Id, at902,
a
4
with social
who "produce[d]photographs
In WalkingMountarn,a photographer
of Mattel'sBarbie
producedandsoldvariousphotographs
andpoliticalundertones,"
5 doll in precarioussituationsandusedtheword "Barbieo'inhis works. Mattelagain
6 sued,claimingtrademarkinfringement.TheNinth Circuitheldthat thetrademark
claimswerebarredasa matterof law, applyingthetwo-prongtest ftom Mattel. The
8 Courtheldthat theuseof the Barbiemarkwasartisticallyrelevantbecausetheusewas
madeto "depictBarbieandtargetthe doll with [defendant's]
parodicmessage."
9
WalkingMountain,353F.3dat 807. Second,
work did not "explicitly
defendant's
l0
misleadasto Mattel'ssponsorship
of theworks." Id,; seealsoMottel, 298 F.3dat 902
1l
("If we seea paintingtitled 'Campbell's
ChickenNoodleSoup,'we'reunlikelyto
t2
13
l+
l5
16
t7
18
t9
20
21
22
23
,\A
believethatCampbell'shasbranched
intotheart business.Nor, uponhearing.Ianis
Joplincroon,'Oh Lord,won't you buyme a Mercedes-Benz?'
wouldwe suspect
that
sheandthe carmakerhaveenteredinto ajoint venture").
Thus,in a casesuchasthis,wheretheoomark"
is a person'snameand/oridentity
andthe "use" is in a work of protectedspeech,
thenthe LanharnAct claim mustfail
because
theuseis artisticaliyrelevantandnot specificallymisleadingasto
sponsorship
or endorsement.
That,of course,is the casehere: theuseof Hilton's
nameandlikenessis artisticallyrelevantto theparodyof her in the Cardand thereis
no explicitstatement
that Hilton endorses
or sponsors
the Card. Rather,the Card
clearlystatesthatit comesfrom Hallmark.
b,
As u Mutter of Law, Thereis No Likelihood of confusion
StemmingFrom The Card
LA
25
26
21
28
Evenassumingthatthe "likelihoodof confusion"testapplied(which it clearly
doesnot),because
of the parodicnafureof Hallmark'suse,thereis no ,.likelihood,,
thatit wouldcauseconfusionasto theoriginor association
of theCard. ..The
hallmarkof a LanhamAct suit is proofof thelikelihoodof confusion,
which occurs
iSAB
LI
DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
betweenthe involved
makean incorrectmentalassociation
'whenconsumers
2 commercialproductor theirproducers."'Cardtoons,95 F.3d at966(citationomitted).
I
I
a
J
In Cardtoons,afterexaminingtheparodyworks(mockbaseballcardsridiculing
4 baseballplayers),theTenthCircuitrejectedplaintiff s LanhamAct claimandheldthat
5 "no onewould mistake[thebaseballplayers]asanythingotherthanthe targetof the
theCourtheldthat,"as with all successful
6 parodyoards."Id. at 967. Furlhermoreo
7 parodies,the effectof the cardsis to amuseratherthanconfuse,"andthe "success
of [Cardtoons']parodycardswith traditional,
8 dependsuponthe humorousassociation
9 licensedbaseballcards,not uponpublicconfusionasto the sourcoof the cards,"Id.
10
ll
As setforth above,theHallmarkCardclearlyparodiesHilton andidentifies
Hallmark,not Hilton, asthe source.Giventhenatureof the HallmarkCard,asin
t 2 Cardtoons,thereis simplyno likelihoodthatits purchasers
or recipients..vouldbe
t 3 confusedasto whetherHilton herselfcreatedand/orendorsedtheCard.
t4
l5
t6
4.
Hilton's LanhamAct Claim Fails BecauseIt DoesNot Atlege
Actual Malice.
For a public figureto sustaina claimunderthe LanhamAct, thatpublic figure
t 7 mustpleadandprove,with clearandconvincingevidence,thatthe defendantacted
I 8 with actualmalice* i.e.,with "'recklessdisregardfor thetruth' or a 'high degreeof
t 9 awareness
of probablefalsity."' Hoffman,255F.3dat LI86 (quotingHarte-Hanks
2A communications,
Inc. v. connaughton,4glu.s. 6s7,667(1999).To showactual
21 malicein the LanhamAct context,thepublicfiguremustdemonstrate
with clearand
22 convincingevidencethatthedefendant"intendedto createthe falseimpressionin the
23 mindsof its readersthatwhentheysawthealtered"imagetheywereinsteadseeing
.\^
L-t
2s
plaintiffor something
endorsed
by plaintiff.Hoffman,255F.3dat ll87 , I 189n.3;
Kountikovav. GeneralMediaCommunications
lnc.,278F.Supp.2d
i I I l, I l2g (C.D.
26 Cal.2003)("Courtshaveplacedlimitson LanhamAct lawsuitsbecause the
of
)1
potentialimpacton First Amendmentrights. when a public figure(who
is
28 complainingabouttheuseof heridentityin noncommercial
speech)bringsa false
SSAB
l8
DEFENDANT'SNOTICE OF MO'TIONAND MOTION TO DISMISS
'I
T
claim,it is banedby the FirstAmendmentunlessthe plaintiff produces
endorsernent
2 clearandconvincingevidencethatthedefendantactedwith actualmalicein creating
J
4
of endorsement").
thefalseimpression
ThatHilton is a publicfigureis hardlyin dispute.A public figuresuchasHilton
5 (andeventhoseof muchlessernotoriety)is requiredto pleadandproveactualmalice
6
claimunderthe LanhamAct. Hoffman,255
in orderto prevailon a falseendorsement
F.3dat I 186. Thereis no allegationin theAmendedComplaintthatHallmarkacted
Hilton knowsthat shecannotsupportsuchan
because
8 with actualmalice,presumably
9 allegation.This is yet anotherreasonto dismiss.
1n
D. Hilton's TrademarkInfringementClaim Fails As A Matter Of Law
In Hilton's third claim,shealiegesthatshehasa registered
trademarkin the
\2 phraseooThat's
Hct" andthe Cardviolatesthattrademark.Cmpt.''11
31. This claim
1 3 fails asa matterof law for a varietyof reasons.
1l
14
l.
l5
t6
t/
The Card's UseOf The Words "That's Hot" Is ProtectedBv
the First Amendment
As setforth above,the Cardis fully protectedspeechunderthe First
Amendment.Thus,Hilton's claimof infringementof a trademarkfor her "That'sHot"
l8 markis banedunderthe FirstAmendment.,SeeKirby, 144CaLApp. 4th at 61 (claims
19 barredso long asdefendant'swork "contributessignificantlydistinctiveand
20 expressive
content").
2l
22
2.
The card's use of The words 66That's
Hot,, Is protected
Under The NominativeUseDoctrine
The useof a mark in a parodicwork is protectedby the nominativeusedoctrine,
24 which allows the use of a mark for purposesof comparison,criticism point
or
of
25 reference, walking Mountain, 353 F.3d at g09. Here, the words o,that,s
hot,, were not
26 usedin a trademarksenseto designategoodsor services;they were
not featured by
27 Hallmark in advertisements,brandnamesor other commercialindicators
of source,
28 sponsorshipor affiliation. Rather,they wereusedin a parodyabout
Hilton, which
SSAB
l9
DEFENDANT'SNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
showsher servingasa waitressandsaying"that'shot" to literallypoint out the
of a plateof food. Accordingly,this is a protectednominativeuse. /d' at
2 temperature
F.Supp.2dat 428(notingthatparody
J
8 10-8I 1. SeeWorld WrestlingFederation,2SA
I
4
of the
irreverentrepresentation
maybe "conveyedby juxtaposing[defendant's]
5 trademarkwith the idealizedimagecreatedby the mark'sowner");NewKtds,97I F.2d
6
wouldbe all but impossibleif
at307("Much usefulsocialandcommercialdiscourse
wereunderthreatof an infringementlawsuiteverytime theymadereference
speakers
B to a person,companyor productby usingits trademal*").
9
3.
BecauseHallmark'sCard Is ProtectedBy The First
10
Amendment,The LilcelihoodOf ConfusionTestDoesNot
ll
.tl
Apply And, Moreover,Hilton Cannot ShowAny Likelihood of
1^
Confusion,
tz
1^,
IJ
1A
rt
As setforth above,"whena trademarkownerasserlsa right to controlhow we
expressourselves"or whena mark"hastakenon an expressive
meaningapartfrom its
t 5 source-identifying
function"then"applyingthetraditionalflikelihoodof confusion]
t 6 testfailsto accountfor the full weightof thepublic'sinterestin freeexpression."
t'7
Mattel,296F.3dat 900. Accordingly,
theuseof Hilton'smarkin theCardis immune
t 8 from trademarkinfringementliability because
usingthe words"that'shot" wasclearly
19 artisticallyrelevantto the Cardandtheuseof thewords(in theirliteralsense)do not
20 explicitlystate,or evensuggest,thattheCardwasauthorizedor endorsedby Hilton.
2l
Moreover,evenif theHallmarkCard'suseof "that'shot'oweresubiectto this
22 test,Hilton cannotshowanylikelihoodof confusionasa matterof law andtherefore
23 herclaim fails. Burnettis directlyon point. In Burnett,a segmentof theFamily Guy
1A
televisionshowdepictedCarolBurnettasher famous"Charwoman"characrer
25 workingin a pornshop. Burnettsuedfor trademarkinfringement.Thecourt found
L'i
26 thattherewasno likelihoodof confusion,
holdingthatif theoooverall
settingis suchas
27 to conveyto the ordinaryviewerthatthisis ajoke, not therealthing,thenconfusionas
ZB to source,sponsorship,
affiliationor connection
is unlikely." Burnett,49l F.Supp.2d
SSAB
20
DEFENDANT'SNOTICEOFMOTIONAND MOTIONTO DISMISS
I
Burnettasanythingother
viewerwouldmistake...Carol
atg72. Thus,"no reasonable
the courtgranteddefendants'
2 thanthetargetof a FamilyGuy parody." A.ccordingly,
J
a
at 974,Seealso WalkingMountain,353
motionto dismiss.Burnett,49lF.Supp.2d
4
wouid realizethe criticalnatureof fthe
consumer
F.3dat 8 I 1 ("Any reasonable
5 accused]work andits lack of affiliationwith Mattel. Criticalworksaremuchless
6 likely to havea perceivedaffiliationwith theoriginalwork"). Becausethe Hallmark
I
viewer
Cardis criticalandparodic,aswell asnot confusingasto origin,no reasonable
or wasaffiliatedwith theCard.
8 of the cardwouldassumethatHilton endorsed
Thatconclusionis furtherbolsteredby the factthatHilton doesnot andcannot
9
with greetingcards.As setforth in SectionII
1 0 assertrightsoverthe mark in connection
l1
of thephrase"That'sHot" with
above,afterHiltonfiied herintentto useapplication
1 2 the UnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice in July 20A4,shespecificallyand
ta
IJ
unequivocally
disclaimedany intentto usethemarkin connectionwith paper
t 4 products,suchas greetingcards.Thus,whenthemarkwasregisteredin 20A7,it was
15 limitedto usein connectiononly with specificclothingproductsin Class25. RFJN,
t 6 Ex.B. Hilton'sconcession
thatshedoesnot usethemarkin connection
with items
1
'7
tl
suchas greetingcards,defeatsanyclaimof likelihoodof confusion.e
1 8 V.
CONCLUSION
i9
Hilton hasbecomea household
namebasedin largeparton hereffortsto draw
2A attentionto herself.Havingdoneso,shehassubjected
herselfto publicscrutinyand
2 l theparodist's
pen. TheFirstAmendment
doesnot allowherto respondby welcoming
22 the fawningandflattering,but silencingthecriticalandcomical.For the reasonsset
23
24
25
26
27
28
'Of course,evenif Hilton offeredgreetingcards,thiswouldnot makeher claims valid, New
Kids,97l F.2dat 309 ("While theNew Kids havea lirniteclpropertyright in their
name,that
right doesnot entitlethemto controltheir fans'useof theirmoney. Where,
ashere,theuse
doesnotimply sponsorship
or endorsement,
the factthatit is carriedon for'profit andin
competitionwith the tradernark
holder'sbusiness
is besidethepoint ... thetraoemarkIawsdo
not givethe New Kids theright to channeltheirfans'enthusiasm
(anddollars)only to items
licensedor authorizedby thern").
sSAB
21
DEFENDANT'SNOTICE,OFMOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
I
forth above,Hallmarkrespectfullyrequests
thatthe Courtdismissall the claimsin
2 Hilton's AmendedCompiaintwith prejudiceandwithoutleaveto amend.
3
4
DATED: November2.204'/
ARoNoRp
LLP
Ba,Nor,ow
Spu.aNsSHaeF'F'rR
5
6
n
I
8
9
10
ircolnBandlow
Attorneysfor Defendant
I.IALLMARK CARDS.INCORPORATED
ll
12
l3
t4
15
16
r7
l8
19
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SSAB
22
DEFHNDANT'S
NOTICEOFMOTIONAND MOTIONTO DISMISS
I
2
J
A
5
6
8
9
IU
PROOF OF ELECTROI{IC SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Los Angeles:
I am employedin the Countyof Los Angeles,Stateof California.I am overthe ageof
addressis t 880 CenturyParkEast,Suite
18yearsandnot apartyto this action. My business
California
90067.
1004,LosAngeles,
describedasDEFENDANT
On November2,2007,1 servedtheforegoingdocument(s)
HALLMARK CARDS,INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF MOTTON AND MOTION T0
DISMISS UNDER FRCP 12(bX6);SUPPORTINGMEMORANDUM OF POINTS ANI)
AUTHORITIES on the interestedpartiesirr this action:
BrentH. Blakely
BlakelyLaw Group
915N. CitrusAvenue
Hollywood"CA 90038-2401
RobertTucker,Esq.
'I'ucker& Latifi LLP
160E. g4tr'St.
NewYork,NY 10028
11
LL
l3
A
By ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: by causilg a true copythereofto be sentvia
so indicatedandthat
electronictransmissionto the attorney(s)of recordto the ernailaddresses
thetransmissionwas reportedas completedandwithout error.
1A
IT
to tire
By MAIL: by placingtrueandcorrectcopy(ies)thereofin an envelopeaddressed
El
as statedabove.
1 5 attorney(s)ofrecord, addressed
D
By FAX: by causinga true copythereofto be sentvia facsimileto the attorney(s)of
recordat the telecopiernumber(s)so indicatedaboveandthat the transrnissionwasreportedas
1 7 completedandwithout error.
16
18
t9
20
2l
22
By FEDERAL EXPRESS: by causingsameto be deliveredvia FederalExpressto the
tr
addressee(s).
(State) i declareunderpenaltyof perjuryunderthe laws of the Stateof Califomia that
D
the aboveis true and correct.
(Fetleral) I declarethat I arnemployedin the office of a memberof the bar of this court
tr
at whosedirectionthe servicewasmade.
Executedon November 2,20t1 , LosAngeles,Califomia.
na
ZJ
.,^
75
26
27
28
SSAB t-t-p
PROOFOF ELECTRONICSERVICE