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 “identity” was appropriated.

The district court relied on Eastwood v. Superior Court, 149 Cal.App.3d 409 , 198 Cal.Rptr. 342 , (1983), in holding that there was no cause of action for infringement on the right to publicity because there had been no use of a likeness. In Eastwood , the California Court of Appeal described the elements of the tort of “commercial appropriation of the right of publicity” as “(1) the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s identity; (2) the appropriation of plaintiffs name or likeness to defendant’s advantage, ...; (3) lack of consent; and (4) resulting injury.” Id. at 417 , 198 Cal.Rptr. 342 . (Emphasis added).

All of the California cases that my research has disclosed hold that a cause of action for appropriation of the right to publicity requires proof of the appropriation of a name or likeness. See, e.g., Lugosi v. Universal Pictures, 25 Cal.3d 813 , 603 P.2d 425 , 160 Cal.Rptr. 323 (1979) (“The so-called right of publicity means in essence that the reaction of the public to name and likeness ... endows the name and likeness of the person" involved with commercially exploitable opportunities.”); Guglielmi v. Spelling-Goldberg Prods., 25 Cal.3d 860 , 603 P.2d 454, 457 , 160 Cal.Rptr. 352, 355 (1979) (use of name of Rudolph Valentino in fictional biography allowed); Eastwood v. Superior Court, supra (use of photo and name of actor on cover of tabloid newspaper); In re Weingand, 231 Cal.App.2d 289 , 41 Cal.Rptr. 778 (1964) (aspiring actor denied court approval to change name to “Peter Lorie” when famous actor Peter Lorre objected); Fairfield v. American Photocopy Equip. Co., 138 Cal.App.2d 82 , 291 P.2d 194 (1955), later app. 158 Cal. App.2d 53 , 322 P.2d 93 (1958) (use of attorney’s name in advertisement); Gill v. Curtis Publishing Co., 38 C.2d 273, 239 P.2d 630 (1952) (use of photograph of a couple in a magazine).

Notwithstanding the fact that California case law clearly limits the test of the right to publicity to name and likeness, the majority concludes that “the common law right of publicity is not so confined.” Majority opinion at p. 1397. The majority relies on two factors to support its innovative extension of the California law. The first is that the Eastwood court’s statement of the elements was permissive rather than exclusive. The second is that Dean Prosser, in describing the common law right to publicity, stated that it might be *1403 possible that the right extended beyond name or likeness. These are slender reeds to support a federal court’s attempt to create new law for the state of California.

In reaching its surprising conclusion, the majority has ignored the fact that the California Court of Appeal in Eastwood specifically addressed the differences between the common law right to publicity and the statutory cause of action codified in California Civil Code section 3344. The court explained that “[t]he differences between the common law and the statutory actions are: (1) Section 3344, subdivision (a) requires knowing use whereas under case law, mistake and inadvertence are not a defense against commercial appropriation and (2) section 3344, subdivision (g) expressly provides that its remedies are cumulative and in addition to any provided by law.” Eastwood , 149 Cal.App.3d at n. 6, 198 Cal.Rptr. 342 (emphasis in original). The court did not include appropriations of identity by means other than name or likeness among its list of differences between the statute and the common law.

The majority also relies on Dean Pros-ser’s statement that “[i]t is not impossible that there might be an appropriation of the plaintiff’s identity, as by impersonation, without the use of either his name or his likeness, and that this would be an invasion of his right of privacy.” Prosser, Privacy, 48 Cal.L.Rev. 383, 401 n. 155 (1960). As Dean Prosser noted, however, “[n]o such case appears to have arisen.” Id.

The majority states that the case law has borne out Dean Prosser’s insight that the right to publicity is not limited to name or likeness. As noted above, however, the courts of California have never found an infringement on the right to publicity without the use of the plaintiff’s name or likeness.

The interest of the California Legislature as expressed in California Civil Code section 3344 appears to preclude the result reached by the majority. The original section 3344 protected only name or likeness. In 1984, ten years after our decision in Motschenbacher v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, 498 F.2d 821 (9th Cir.1974) and 24 years after Prosser speculated about the future development of the law of the right of publicity, the California legislature amended the statute. California law now makes the use of someone’s voice or signature, as well as name or likeness, actionable. Cal.Civ.Code sec. 2233(a) (Deering 1991 Supp.). Thus, California, after our decision in Motschenbacher specifically contemplated protection for interests other than name or likeness, but did not include a cause of action for appropriation of another person’s identity. The ancient maxim, in-clusio unius est exclusio alterius, would appear to bar the majority’s innovative extension of the right of publicity. The clear implication from the fact that the California Legislature chose to add only voice and signature to the previously protected interests is that it wished to limit the cause of action to enumerated attributes.

The majority has focused on federal decisions in its novel extension of California Common Law. Those decisions do not provide support for the majority’s decision.

In each of the federal cases relied upon by the majority, the advertisement affirmatively represented that the person depicted therein was the plaintiff. In this case, it is clear that a metal robot and not the plaintiff, Vanna White, is depicted in the commercial advertisement. The record does not show an appropriation of Vanna White’s identity.

In Motschenbacher , a picture of a well-known race driver’s car, including its unique markings, was used in an advertisement. Id. at 822 . Although the driver could be seen in the car, his features were not visible. Id. The distinctive markings on the car were the only information shown in the ad regarding the identity of the driver. These distinctive markings compelled the inference that Motschenbacher was the person sitting in the racing car. We concluded that “California appellate courts would ... afford legal protection to an individual’s proprietary interest in his own identity.” Id. at 825 . (Emphasis added). Because the distinctive markings on the racing car were sufficient to identify Motschenbacher as the driver of the car, *1404 we held that an issue of fact had been raised as to whether his identity had been appropriated. Id. at 827 .

In Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir.1988), a singer who had been instructed to sound as much like Bette Mi-dler as possible, sang a song in a radio commercial made famous by Bette Midler. Id. at 461 . A number of persons told Bette Midler that they thought that she had made the commercial. Id. at 462 . Aside from the voice, there was no information in the commercial from which the singer could be identified. We noted that “[t]he human voice is one of the most palpable ways identity is manifested.” Id. at 463 . We held that, “[t]o impersonate her voice is to pirate her identity,” id., and concluded that Midler had raised a question of fact as to the misappropriation of her identity.

In Carson v. Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., 698 F.2d 831 (6th Cir.1983), the Sixth Circuit was called upon to interpret Michigan’s common-law right to publicity. The case involved a manufacturer who used the words, “Here’s Johnny,” on portable toilets. Id. at 832-33. These same words were used to introduce the star of a popular late-night television program. There was nothing to indicate that this use of the phrase on the portable toilets was not associated with Johnny Carson’s television program. The court found that “[h]ere there was an appropriation of Carson’s identity,” which violated the right to publicity. Id. at 837.

The common theme in these federal cases is that identifying characteristics unique to the plaintiffs were used in a context in which they were the only information as to the identity of the individual. The commercial advertisements in each case showed attributes of the plaintiff’s identities which made it appear that the plaintiff was the person identified in the commercial. No effort was made to dispel the impression that the plaintiffs were the source of the personal attributes at issue. The commercials affirmatively represented that the plaintiffs were involved. See, e.g., Midler at 462 (“The [Motschenbacher] ad suggested that it was he.... In the same way the defendants here used an imitation to convey the impression that Midler was singing for them.”). The proper interpretation of Motschenbacher, Midler, and Carson is that where identifying characteristics unique to a plaintiff are the only information as to the identity of the person appearing in an ad, a triable issue of fact has been raised as to whether his or her identity as been appropriated.

The case before this court is distinguishable from the factual showing made in Motschenbacher, Midler, and Carson. It is patently clear to anyone viewing the commercial advertisement that Vanna White was not being depicted. No reasonable juror could confuse a metal robot with Vanna White.

The majority contends that “the individual aspects of the advertisement ... [v]iewed together leave little doubt about the celebrity the ad is meant to depict.” Majority Opinion at p. 1399. It derives this conclusion from the fact that Vanna White is “the only one” who “dresses like this, turns letters, and does this on the Wheel of Fortune game show.” Id. In reaching this conclusion, the majority confuses Van-na White, the person, with the role she has assumed as the current hostess on the “Wheel of Fortune” television game show. A recognition of the distinction between a performer and the part he or she plays is essential for a proper analysis of the facts of this case. As is discussed below, those things which Vanna White claims identify her are not unique to her. They are, instead, attributes of the role she plays. The representation of those attributes, therefore, does not constitute a representation of Vanna White. See Nurmi v. Peterson, 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1775 (C.D.Cal.1989) (distinguishing between performer and role).

Vanna White is a one-role celebrity. She is famous solely for appearing as the hostess on the “Wheel of Fortune” television show. There is nothing unique about Van-na White or the attributes which she claims identify her. Although she appears to be an attractive woman, her face and figure are no more distinctive than that of other equally comely women. She performs her *1405 role as hostess on “Wheel of Fortune” in a simple and straight-forward manner. Her work does not require her to display whatever artistic talent she may possess.

The majority appears to argue that because Samsung created a robot with the physical proportions of an attractive woman, posed it gracefully, dressed it in a blond wig, an evening gown, and jewelry, and placed it on a set that resembles the Wheel of Fortune layout, it thereby appropriated Vanna White’s identity. But an attractive appearance, a graceful pose, blond hair, an evening gown, and jewelry are attributes shared by many women, especially in Southern California. These common attributes are particularly evident among game-show hostesses, models, actresses, singers, and other women in the entertainment field. They are not unique attributes of Vanna White’s identity. Accordingly, I cannot join in the majority’s conclusion that, even if viewed together, these attributes identify Vanna White and, therefore, raise a triable issue as to the appropriation of her identity.

The only characteristic in the commercial advertisement that is not common to many female performers or celebrities is the imitation of the “Wheel of Fortune” set. This set is the only thing which might possibly lead a viewer to think of Vanna White. The Wheel of Fortune set, however, is not an attribute of Vanna White’s identity. It is an identifying characteristic of a television game show, a prop with which Van-na White interacts in her role as the current hostess. To say that Vanna White may bring an action when another blond female performer or robot appears on such a set as a hostess will, I am sure, be a surprise to the owners of the show. Cf. Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n, 805 F.2d 663 (7th Cir.1986) (right to publicity in videotaped performances preempted by copyright of owner of telecast).

The record shows that Samsung recognized the market value of Vanna White’s identity. No doubt the advertisement would have been more effective if Vanna White had appeared in it. But the fact that Samsung recognized Vanna White’s value as a celebrity does not necessarily mean that it appropriated her identity. The record shows that Samsung dressed a robot in a costume usually worn by television game-show hostesses, including Vanna White. A blond wig, and glamorous clothing are not characteristics unique to the current hostess of Wheel of Fortune. This evidence does not support the majority’s determination that the advertisement was meant to depict Vanna White. The advertisement was intended to depict a robot, playing the role Vanna White currently plays on the Wheel of Fortune. I quite agree that anyone seeing the commercial advertisement would be reminded of Vanna White. Any performance by another female celebrity as a game-show hostess, however, will also remind the viewer of Vanna White because Vanna White’s celebrity is so closely associated with the role. But the fact that an actor or actress became famous for playing a particular role has, until now, never been sufficient to give the performer a proprietary interest in it. I cannot agree with the majority that the California courts, which have consistently taken a narrow view of the right to publicity, would extend law to these unique facts.

III.

THE LANHAM ACT

Vanna White’s Lanham Act claim is easily resolved by applying the proper legal standard. Vanna White seeks damages for violation of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. To succeed, Vanna White must prove actual deception of the consuming public. Harper House, Inc. v. Thomas Nelson, Inc., 889 F.2d 197, 208 (9th Cir.1989) (claim for damages under section 43(a) requires showing the defendant “actually deceived a significant portion of the consuming public.”); see also PPX Enterprises, Inc. v. Audiofidelity Enterprises, Inc., 818 F.2d 266, 271 (2d Cir.1987) (“to establish entitlement to damages for violation of section 43(a): [Plaintiffs] must establish actual confusion or deception resulting from the violation.”); J. Gilson, Trademark Protec *1406 tion and Practice section 7.02[8] at 7-137 to 7-138 (1991) (plaintiffs must show actual deception to obtain damages under section 43(a)). Vanna White offered no evidence that any portion of the consuming public was deceived. The district court was correct in granting summary judgment on Vanna White’s Lanham Act claim.

The majority finds that because a majority of factors set forth in AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979), favor Vanna White, the district court erred in granting summary judgment.

The AMF test is designed to aid in determining whether two marks are so sufficiently similar that it is likely that a consumer would confuse them. Where the marks are so obviously different that no confusion could possibly occur, the test is unnecessary. That is the situation in this matter. The attempt to use the Lanham Act to prevent “misappropriations” of which a court does not approve results in the distortion of the law which makes it more difficult to apply the law in appropriate cases. See Hanson & Walls, Protecting Trademark Goodwill: Towards a Federal Standard of Misappropriation, 81 Trademark Rep. 480 , 511-513 (1991). This case is an example of such distortion.

The majority assumes the conclusion that the AMF test is designed to disclose. In repeatedly stating that the robot “identifies” Vanna White, the majority has usurped the fact finding function of the district court.

The majority holds that the first factor of the AMF test, strength of the mark, weighs in Vanna White’s favor. It equates this factor with the strength of Vanna White’s fame, citing Allen v. National Video, Inc., 610 F.Supp. 612 (D.C.N.Y. 1985). Allen involved a celebrity look-alike who bore a remarkable resemblance to Woody Allen. Id. at 617 . The instant matter involves a robot that bears no resemblance to Vanna White.

It is unclear whether the “mark” for which Vanna White seeks protection is her screen image or the imitation Wheel of Fortune. Although Vanna White is certainly famous for being famous, there is no evidence in the record that consumers identify the specific characteristics at issue, i.e., blond hair and fancy dress, solely with Vanna White. The majority ignores this important distinction.

The majority has glossed over the third AMF factor — similarity of the marks — the most important factor in this case. The majority finds this factor “ambiguous” because the common characteristics “identify” Vanna White. Majority Opinion at p. 1400. We are required, however, to compare marks in their entirety. California Cooler, Inc. v. Loretto Winery, 774 F.2d 1451 (9th Cir.1985). In this matter, the consumer is confronted with two entities. One is Vanna White. The other is a robot. No one could reasonably confuse the two.

Certain aspects of a mark may have a greater impact than other aspects. When a mark has certain salient characteristics, they are given greater weight. Country Floors, Inc. v. Gepner, 930 F.2d 1056 (3d Cir. 1991); Henri’s Food Products Co. v. Kraft, Inc., 717 F.2d 352 (7th Cir.1983); Giant Food, Inc. v. Nations’ Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565 (Fed.Cir.1983). The face of Vanna White and the features of the robot are obviously more important characteristics than their hair, dress, physical proportions, jewelry, or the decoration of the set. Thus, the features of the robot and Vanna White should be given great weight in the analysis. It should be clear to anyone viewing the commercial advertisement that the crude features of the robot are very dissimilar to Vanna White’s attractive and human face.

The majority’s analysis of the intent or seventh factor in AMF is similarly suspect. The question presented here is whether there is any evidence in the record that Samsung intended to confuse consumers. It did not.

Where the circumstances are sufficient to eliminate any likelihood of confusion, this court has repeatedly held that there is no claim for a violation of the Lanham Act. See Toho Co., Ltd. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 645 F.2d 788 (9th Cir.1981) (“Bagzilla” garbage bags did not infringe “Godzilla” mark); Walt Disney Prods. v. Air Pi *1407 rates, 581 F.2d 751 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied sub nom O’Neill v. Walt Disney Prods, 439 U.S. 1132 , 99 S.Ct. 1054 , 59 L.Ed.2d 94 (1979) (“Silly Sympathies” in adult comic books did not infringe on Disney’s “Silly Symphonies”). The use of a robot in the commercial advertisement makes it clear that Yanna White did not endorse Samsung’s product.

Although likelihood of confusion may usually be a factual question, “courts retain an important authority to monitor the outer limits of substantial similarity within which a jury is permitted to make the factual determination whether there is a likelihood of confusion.” Warner Bros., Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 720 F.2d 231 , 246 (2d Cir.1983). “[Sjummary judgment is appropriate if the court is satisfied that the products or marks are so dissimilar that no question of fact is presented.” Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 746 F.2d 112 (2d Cir.1984).

“There is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmov-ing party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Yanna White has presented no evidence of actual deception. Thus, she has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that would support her Lanham Act claim.

IV.

SAMSUNG’S FIRST AMENDMENT DEFENSE

The majority gives Samsung’s First Amendment defense short shrift because “[tjhis case involves a true advertisement run for the purpose of selling Samsung VCRs.” Majority opinion at p. 1401. I respectfully disagree with the majority’s analysis of this issue as well.

The majority’s attempt to distinguish this case from Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 , 108 S.Ct. 876 , 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (1988), and L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26 (1st Cir.1987), is unpersuasive. The majority notes that the parodies in those cases were made for the purpose of poking fun at the Reverend Jerry Falwell and L.L. Bean. But the majority fails to consider that the defendants in those cases were making fun of the Reverend Jerry Falwell and L.L. Bean for the purely commercial purpose of selling soft-core pornographic magazines.

Generally, a parody does not constitute an infringement on the original work if it takes no more than is necessary to “conjure up” the original. Walt Disney Prods, v. Air Pirates, 581 F.2d 751, 756 (9th Cir. 1978). The majority has failed to consider these factors properly in deciding that Van-na White may bring an action for damages solely because the popularity of the fame show, Wheel of Fortune.

The effect of the majority’s holding on expressive conduct is difficult to estimate. The majority’s position seems to allow any famous person or entity to bring suit based on any commercial advertisement that depicts a character or role performed by the plaintiff. Under the majority’s view of the law, Gene Autry could have brought an action for damages against all other singing cowboys. Clint Eastwood would be able to sue anyone who plays a tall, soft-spoken cowboy, unless, of course, Jimmy Stewart had not previously enjoined Clint Eastwood. Johnny Weismuller would have been able to sue each actor who played the role of Tarzan. Sylvester Stallone could sue actors who play blue-collar boxers. Chuck Norris could sue all karate experts who display their skills in motion pictures. Arnold Schwarzenegger could sue body builders who are compensated for appearing in public.

The majority’s reading of the Lanham Act would provide a basis for “commercial” enterprises to maintain an action for section 43(a) violations even in the absence of confusion or deception. May Black and Decker, maker of the “Dustbuster” portable vacuum, now sue “Bust-dusters,” the Los Angeles topless cleaning service. Can the Los Angeles Kings hockey team state a cause of action against the City of Las Vegas for its billboards reading “L.A. has the Kings, but we have the Aces.”

*1408 Direct competitive advertising could also be affected. Will BMW, which advertises its automobiles as “the ultimate driving machine,” be able to maintain an action against Toyota for advertising one of its cars as “the ultimate saving machine”? Can Coca Cola sue Pepsi because it depicted a bottle of Coca Cola in its televised “taste test”? Indeed, any advertisement which shows a competitor’s product, or any recognizable brand name, would appear to be liable for damages under the majority’s view of the applicable law. Under the majority’s analysis, even the depiction of an obvious facsimile of a competitor’s product may provide sufficient basis for the maintenance of an action for damages.

V.

CONCLUSION

The protection of intellectual property presents the courts with the necessity of balancing competing interests. On the one hand, we wish to protect and reward the work and investment of those who create intellectual property. In so doing, however, we must prevent the creation of a monopoly that would inhibit the creative expressions of others. We have traditionally balanced those interests by allowing the copying of an idea, but protecting a unique expression of it. Samsung clearly used the idea of a glamorous female game show hostess. Just as clearly, it avoided appropriating Vanna White’s expression of that role. Samsung did not use a likeness of her. The performer depicted in the commercial advertisement is unmistakably a lifeless robot. Vanna White has presented no evidence that any consumer confused the robot with her identity. Indeed, no reasonable consumer could confuse the robot with Vanna White or believe that, because the robot appeared in the advertisement, Vanna White endorsed Samsung’s product.

I would affirm the district court’s judgment in all respects.