Old but not old story: Being sued by basketball superstar Michael Jordan for violating image copyright and arbitrarily printing non-commercial publications

Although the commemorative publication does not mention a specific product, it is not necessarily ‘non-commercial’. After this case, companies must be more careful in “celebrating” and “honoring” sports stars without “permission”.

Source of lawsuit: “commemorative, non-commercial” supermarket publication

In 2009, when basketball superstar Michael Jordan was inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, Sports Illustrated planned to release a special commemorative issue to honor his career. this athlete.

Jewel-Osco supermarket chain in the US sent a publication to the magazine for publication. This publication includes: Jewel-Osco’s logo and slogan, Michael Jordan’s jersey number 23 printed on a pair of shoes, with the greeting: “Jewel-Osco congratulates number 23 for his continued achievements.”

Publication of the Jewel-Osco supermarket chain or the source of the lawsuit.

Michael Jordan was very dissatisfied and believed that this publication was a commercial abuse of his identity to benefit the supermarket chain. The basketball superstar filed a lawsuit against Jewel-Osco under the Lanham Act and the Illinois Broadcasting Rights Act, seeking $5 million in damages.

Jewel-Osco supermarket chain argues that, under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is immune from liability because their publication is non-commercial, especially when the publication does not mention any specific product of the supermarket chain So this cannot be considered an advertising act. Initially, the court favored Jewel-Osco.

How did Michael Jordan’s lawyer respond?

Michael Jordan then appealed. This time, to determine whether the supermarket chain’s commemorative publication is “commercial” or “non-commercial”, the court must consider whether it “suggests a commercial transaction” or not. Are not. All are considered through three factors: whether the commemorative publication can be advertising or not, whether it refers to a commercial product and whether it is distributed by the company for economic purposes or not.

The first and third points: can commemorative publications be advertising or not, distributed by the company for economic purposes or not? The court found that the supermarket chain’s post was a form of image advertising intended to promote the company’s brand, not individual products. Ostensibly to celebrate Michael Jordan’s achievements, the publication actually serves a commercial purpose by raising awareness of the Jewel-Osco brand, increasing customer sympathy for the brand and encouraging them to visit the brand. Purchase. Because Jewel-Osco has placed its logo in the publication.

An example of an advertisement for women’s sanitary napkins in the US.

Second thing: does the publication refer to a commercial product? Michael Jordan’s lawyers convinced the court by arguing that there are many commercial advertisements that do not directly mention any specific product or service through images. This case is especially common with goods that are prohibited from being publicly advertised, such as cigarettes, alcohol, or “difficult” products, such as ads for women’s sanitary napkins that simply have pictures of girls. moving happily, absolutely no specific images of the product.

After about six years of pursuing the lawsuit, Michael Jordan and Jewel-Osco finally reached an agreement, through which the basketball superstar was compensated.

Previously, Michael Jordan also sued another supermarket chain, Dominick, to court for similarly abusing personal images without permission. In the case with Dominick, the jury awarded Michael Jordan $8.9 million in damages. Perhaps thanks to the ruling protecting Michael Jordan in this lawsuit, Jewel-Osco hastily reached an agreement with him, although the official compensation amount was not made public.

Michael Jordan said that all compensation money will be given to charity. He pursued the lawsuits to the end not for personal enrichment but to maintain control over the use of his identity.

Boxing king Muhammad Ali: passed away but still “can’t rest in peace”

Similar to Michael Jordan’s case, in 2017, Muhammad Ali Enterprises also filed a lawsuit against the American Fox Media Company for image copyright infringement. Muhammad Ali Enterprises is the owner of all intellectual property and promotional rights associated with boxing legend Muhammad Ali, who passed away in 2016.

Boxing legend Muhammad Ali

Fox made a video in which the first half is a tribute and honor to Muhammad Ali, the second half honors a series of legends of the American Football League (NFL), ending with the logo of the Super Bowl or Super Bowl. American football. This video was shown during the 2017 Super Bowl broadcast.
Sued for “using personal identities without permission,” Fox argued that as a broadcaster, it had a general license to promote its products and services using identities of any individual without their consent.

Muhammad Ali Enterprises argued that, however, Fox did not have the right to use the identity of a person who did not participate or be involved in the event to advertise that event.

Fox has “argued” that Muhammad Ali is a sports athlete, and the Super Bowl is a sports event, so it’s “too relevant.” But the plaintiff objected, saying that Muhammad Ali is a boxer, and the Super Bowl is a football event, the two sides have nothing to do with each other.

The judge did not recognize Fox’s argument and ruled that Muhammad Ali Enterprises won the case.

Epilogue

The stories of Michael Jordan and Muhammad Ali can cause brands to be more careful before putting names and images of celebrities in publications related to their company because it is not necessarily considered “unfair”. commerce”. According to the court’s argument in the above cases, just having the nature of “suggesting a commercial transaction” means the loss belongs to the sued companies.