Re: Tiger Woods Suit

On 2/17/99, Patrick Begos <begos[_at_]ibm.net> wrote:
>
> The NY Times reported yesterday that Tiger Woods' management
> company (run by his father), has sued an artist who painted a
> picture (and then printed copies) of Tiger Woods' victory at
> Augusta. Woods is claiming trademark infringement and violation
> of his right to publicity. Apparently his counsel is being very
> heavy-handed, among other things, demanding the names of 6,000
> people to whom the prints were sold, and claiming that they will
> depose each one (at ruinous expense to defendant).

Let's see if I understand. Tiger is going to offend 6000 of his biggest fans by serving them subpoenas to appear for deposition, and pay his lawyers to fly around to a couple hundred different federal districts at say $2,000 per day to ask them if in fact they were confused about the source of this use of his image. If I were the painter's lawyer I would not only *not* object to turning over the names of the buyers, I'd wrap it up with a bow on it. I would attend exactly one of these depositions (just for my own amusement). Then, when they were done spending half a million dollars, I'd file the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim -- cost to the client $5,000. Tiger's getting taken by his lawyers.

> It's an interesting intersection between a celebrity's rights in
> his name and image, and an artist's first amendment rights to
> paint whatever he wants. In any event, regardless of the merits,
> it appears that Woods is engaging in scorched-earth tactics to
> prevent anyone from painting his picture in the future without
> his permission.

It's an interesting question, but I gotta think the First Amendment still trumps the Lanham Act.

John Noble
<jnoble[_at_]dgsys.com> Received on Thu Feb 18 1999 - 14:43:35 GMT