Bette Midler, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Young & Rubicam Inc., Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant

944 F.2d 909 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1478 , 19 Media L. Rep. 2190 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Bette MIDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. YOUNG & RUBICAM INC., Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant. Nos. 90-55027, 90-55028. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Sept. 20, 1991. Before HUG, TANG and NOONAN, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 The facts of this case are set forth in detail in our decision in Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir.1988) (hereinafter Midler I ). In brief, Bette Midler filed a complaint on April 29, 1986 after advertising agency Young & Rubicam Inc. created a television commercial using a Midler sound-alike. On July 20, 1987 the district court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that Midler had no protectible rights under the laws of California. We reversed the district court holding that "when a distinctive voice of a professional singer is widely known and is deliberately…