• 1) All-encompassing term for "Dirty Tricks"
  
• 2) Lanham Act 15 USC 1125 protects against:
  

  a) misappropriation
  

  b) passing off
  

  c) trademark infringement
  

  d) invasion of right of publicity
  

  e) false advertising
  

  f) likelihood of causing consumer confusion
  

  g) unauthorized commercial endorsements
  

• 3) Seminal International New Service case referred to below INS case - invokes fundamental rules of honesty and fair dealing - equity.

• 1. "news" consisted of facts which were not copyrightable, and
  
• 2. AP did not, at the time, copyright the expression of those facts.
  

a. Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any work, term, name, symbol or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact which --

• 1. is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
  
• 2. in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or another person's goods, services or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
  

b. Any goods marked or labeled in contravention of the provisions of this section shall not be imported into the United States or admitted to entry at any customhouse of the United States. The owner, importer, or consignee of goods refused entry at any customhouse under this section may have any recourse by protest or appeal that is given under the customs revenue laws or may have the remedy given by this chapter in cases involving goods refused entry or seized.

	1. innocent infringement	5. laches 	2. First Amendment		6. unclean hands 	3. Fair use 			7. abandonment 	4. Parody			8. estoppel 	9. acquiescence of use 

	1. injunctive relief		4. attorneys' fees 	2. accounting			5. costs 	3. damages
                        
      

• 1. Violation of Section 43(a) is easier to prove than violation of New York's right of publicity statute.
  

• 1. Singer Tom Waits brought an action against Frito Lay for using a voice in a commercial that sounded like Waits.
  
• 2. Court found a violation of Section 43(a) holding: "courts have recognized false endorsement claims brought by plaintiffs, including celebrities, for unauthorized imitation of their distinctive attributes, where those attributes amount to an unregistered commercial "trademark."
  

• 1. Samsung made a commercial with a robot dressed up as Vanna White on the set of a show that was recognizable as "Wheel of Fortune."
• 2. White brought suit under
  

  a. Cal Section 3344; - the right of publicity statute -- Lanham Act
  

  b. Lanham Act Section 43(a) -- for passing off.
  

• 3. Court dismissed Cal 3344 because "look alikes do not fall within the scope of 3344;
  
• 4. Court upheld White's claim under Section 43(a) "passing off" provisions.
  

  a. Court held that even though Samsung intended to "spoof" Vanna White, it also intended to confuse consumers regarding the endorsement.
  

• 1. Lanham Act claim -- would be denied -- no passing off, no endorsement;
  
• 2. Publicity claim -- would be upheld -- for the commercial use of celebrity's photo without her consent.
  

• 1) In Smith vs. Montoro (1981) an actor who had appeared in a film found that his name had been removed from the credits and replaced with the name of another actor.
  
• 2) Court held this conduct violated Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act as "revers