Intellectual Property
743 F.3d 509 (7th Cir. 2014)
Study notes for Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
The use of a celebrity’s image in advertisements is considered commercial speech and is thus subject to trademark protection.
In Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores, the Seventh Circuit addresses the intersection of celebrity image rights and the concept of commercial speech under trademark law. The court emphasizes that the use of a well-known individual's image in a congratulatory advertisement falls within the realm of commercial speech, thereby obliging the entities involved to comply with trademark protections. This judgment signifies that the commercial context of the use transforms what might otherwise be a non-commercial expressive act into one that seeks to promote a commercial entity's goods or services.
CELEBRITY: Commercial use of likeness Encompasses Laws about Rights Involving Brands To You.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Hinsdale v. Fareway Stores, Inc. | Hinsdale involved a non-commercial use of a trademark in a message, whereas Jordan explicitly dealt with commercial advertisement. |
| Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc. | In Carson, the court ruled on the unauthorized use of a celebrity's name without commercial implications, unlike the commercial context in Jordan. |
The ruling protects the economic interests of celebrities in their likeness and endorses fair competition in advertising.
It may unduly restrict free speech by treating even congratulatory messages as commercial assertions.
Students may be asked to analyze how the court's decision reflects the legal principles governing commercial speech and trademark rights, and to evaluate its implications for both celebrity rights and advertising practices.