Christoff

"No social purpose is served by having the defendant get free some aspect of the plaintiff that would have market value and for which he would normally pay." ( Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (1977) 433 U.S. 562, 576 , 97 S.Ct. 2849 , 53 L.Ed.2d 965 .) That is what happened in this case. Nestlé USA, Inc. (Nestlé or appellant) used Russell Christoff's image on its Taster's Choice instant coffee label without Christoff's consent and without remuneration. A jury awarded Christoff $330,000 in damages and over 15 million dollars in profits.

Nestlé: argues that the jury verdict must be reversed because the cause of action was time barred. According to Nestlé, if the trial court correctly had applied the single-publication rule and a one-year statute of limitations, it would have concluded that the lawsuit filed six years after Nestlé first used Christoff's image was barred. "Under the single-publication rule, with respect to the statute of limitations, publication generally is said to occur on the `first general distribution of the publication to the public'" ( Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1245 , 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 576 , 80 P.3d 676 ( Shively ).)…