Re: Tiger Woods Suit

On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, John Noble <jnoble[_at_]dgsys.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/17/99, Patrick Begos <begos[_at_]ibm.net> wrote:
> >
> > 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.

The trustrees of Lady Diana's estate have been trying to achieve this by registering about 60 separate images of the deceased, but the applications were rejected by the Trademarks office in the UK.

Can't see any merit in law in the claims by Tiger's lawyers. Very odd activity. They'd spend their time better polishing his 5 iron.

"Galvanising Ideas"

Colin Seeger, Consultant, Management of Intellectual Property. P.O Box 3227, Tamarama, Sydney, Australia 2026 Tel: (61) (02) 9365 1186, Fax (61) (02) 9365 1286 <seeger[_at_]ozemail.com.au> Received on Sat Feb 20 1999 - 12:26:24 GMT