881 F. Supp. 2d 1181
C.D. Cal.2011Background
- Arenas sued Shed Media U.S. Inc. and Laura Govan alleging Lanham Act claims, misappropriation of likeness, and unfair competition; Shed moved to strike under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 (anti-SLAPP).
- Shed Media produces Basketball Wives on VH1; BWLA is a spinoff focusing on relationships of women connected to professional basketball players.
- Govan will appear on BWLA, with Arenas alleging he did not authorize use of his identity or trademarks; press materials link Govan to Arenas’ status.
- Arenas seeks to enjoin use of his names/trademarks and to prevent promotional uses that imply endorsement or affiliation with BWLA.
- Court held hearing on August 22, 2011 and denied Arenas’ preliminary injunction while granting Shed Media’s anti-SLAPP motion and dismissing Arenas’ right of publicity claim with leave to amend.
- Court’s decision preserves First Amendment protections and balances Show content with celebrity rights, requiring amendment by Arenas if he chooses to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on misappropriation/right of publicity | Arenas argues BWLA uses his identity to ride publicity. | Shed Media contends use is transformative and within public-interest defenses. | Arenas unlikely to prevail on misappropriation/right of publicity. |
| Trademark infringement likelihood of success | Arenas claims ownership of marks and that BWLA uses them. | Defendants’ use of title and nominative references do not infringe; no likelihood of confusion. | Arenas unlikely to succeed on trademark claim; nominative fair use defenses foreclose liability. |
| Anti-SLAPP applicability | Claims arise from protected speech about public interest. | Abusive litigation to chill expression; action should be struck. | Court grants Shed Media’s anti-SLAPP motion; dismissal of right of publicity claim with leave to amend. |
| Irreparable harm, balance of hardships, public interest | BWLA harms Arenas’ reputation and rights irreparably. | Show’s reputation and contract commitments would suffer; harms to Shed Media are greater. | No irreparable harm; balance and public interest weigh against injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (primary injunction standard; likelihood of irreparable harm required)
- Toyo Tire Holdings Of Am. Inc. v. Cont’l Tire N. Am., Inc., 609 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2010) (multifactored test for preliminary injunctions)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (serious questions and balance of hardships in injunctions)
- Hilton v. Hallmark Cards, 599 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2010) (First Amendment defenses to publicity claims; transformative/public-interest defenses)