Vanna White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., a New York Corporation, and David Deutsch Associates, Inc., a New York Corporation

This case involves a promotional “fame and fortune” dispute. In running a particular advertisement without Vanna White’s permission, defendants Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Samsung) and David Deutsch Associates, Inc. (Deutsch) attempted to capitalize on White’s fame to enhance their fortune. White sued, alleging infringement of various intellectual property rights, but the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Plaintiff Vanna White is the hostess of “Wheel of Fortune,” one of the most popular game shows in television history. An estimated forty million people watch the program daily. Capitalizing on the fame which her participation in the show has bestowed on her, White markets her identity to various advertisers.

The dispute in this case arose out of a series of advertisements prepared for Samsung by Deutsch. The series ran in at least half a dozen publications with widespread, and in some cases national, circulation. Each of the advertisements in the series followed the same theme. Each depicted a current item from popular culture and a Samsung electronic product. Each was set in the…

concurring in part, dissenting in part:

Vanna White seeks recovery from Samsung based on three theories: the right to privacy, the right to publicity, and the Lan-ham Act. I concur in the majority’s conclusions on the right to privacy. I respectfully dissent from its holdings on the right to publicity and the Lanham Act claims.

I.

RIGHT TO PRIVACY (CAL.CIV.CODE § 3344(a))

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that no reasonable jury could find that the robot was a “likeness” of Vanna White within the meaning of California Civil Code section 3344(a).

II.

RIGHT TO PUBLICITY

I must dissent from the majority’s holding on Vanna White’s right to publicity claim. The district court found that, since the commercial advertisement did not show a “likeness” of Vanna White, Samsung did not improperly use the plaintiff’s identity. The majority asserts that the use of a likeness is not required under California common law. According to the majority, recovery is authorized if there is an appropriation of one’s “identity.” I cannot find any holding of a California court that supports this conclusion. Furthermore, the record does not support the majority’s finding that Vanna White’s…

971 F.2d 1395 23 U.S.P.Q.2d 1583 , 20 Media L. Rep. 1457 Vanna WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation, and David Deutsch Associates, Inc., a New York corporation, Defendants-Appellees. No. 90-55840. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 7, 1991. Decided July 29, 1992. As Amended Aug. 19, 1992. Blaine Greenberg, John Genga, Hill Wynne Troop & Meisinger, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. Anthony Liebig, Kenneth Kulzick, Liebig & Kulzick, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before: GOODWIN, PREGERSON, and ALARCON, Circuit Judges. GOODWIN, Senior Circuit Judge: 1 This case involves a promotional "fame and fortune" dispute. In running a particular advertisement without Vanna White's permission, defendants Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Samsung) and David Deutsch Associates, Inc. (Deutsch) attempted to capitalize on White's fame to enhance their fortune. White sued, alleging infringement of various intellectual property rights, but the district court granted summary judgment in favor of…