Hansen v. The Coca-Cola Co. CA4/1
D077588
Cal. Ct. App.Jun 17, 2021Background
- Hubert Hansen founded a juice business in 1935; he died in 1951 and descendants continued using his name/story in marketing.
- Hansen-related assets moved through (a) a 1989 bankruptcy sale (CoPackers bought substantially all assets) and (b) a 1992 asset purchase (Unipac/Hansen Beverage acquired CoPackers’ business).
- Hansen Beverage later rebranded as Monster Energy and used “Hubert’s/Hubert Hansen” on labels; Monster Beverage sold certain brands to Coca‑Cola in 2015.
- In March–June 2015 competing successor-in-interest registrations under Cal. Civ. Code § 3344.1 were filed: Monster Energy (April 8) and the Hubert Hansen Intellectual Property Trust (June 5).
- Trial was bifurcated: the court (phase one) decided declaratory issues and interpreted asset-transfer documents, finding the Trust owned 90% of Hubert’s publicity rights and Monster’s registration void; a jury (phase two) awarded ≈ $9.6M for misappropriation.
- The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded: it upheld bifurcation but held the trial court erred by resolving conflicts in extrinsic evidence and making credibility findings when those were jury questions; it declined to resolve other disputed issues and left certain jury-instruction questions open for retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bifurcation of trial | Court should decide declaratory/contract ownership issues (equitable relief) before jury. | Bifurcation would improperly deny jury determination of ownership tied to §3344.1 claim. | Bifurcation was not an abuse of discretion; procedural splitting was permissible. |
| Contract interpretation / extrinsic evidence | Court could interpret asset transfers and rule they did not transfer publicity rights. | Court erred by admitting conflicting extrinsic evidence and making credibility rulings (those are jury questions). | Appellate court: trial court erred — conflicts in extrinsic evidence and credibility determinations should have gone to jury; reversal and remand. |
| Ownership / §3344.1 successor registrations | Trust: heirs assigned/registered the publicity right; registration valid. | Monster: acquired rights via broad 1989/1992 asset transfers and earlier filed registration valid. | Trial court previously found Trust owned rights; because contract-interpretation error requires retrial, ownership/use claims must be reexamined consistent with jury determinations on extrinsic issues. |
| Statute of limitations / single-publication rule (product labels) | Respondents’ jury instruction required defendants to prove post-cutoff labels were identical (to show single publication). | Defendants argued that instruction was legally erroneous and too strict. | Appellate court could not determine on the record whether the instruction was legally erroneous; directed parties to develop factual record on label production/republication on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 25 Cal.4th 387 (right of publicity characterized as a form of intellectual property)
- Lugosi v. Universal Pictures, 25 Cal.3d 813 (common-law publicity/privacy claim not descendible to heirs)
- Christoff v. Nestle USA, Inc., 47 Cal.4th 468 (single-publication rule applies to commercial‑use/publicity claims; remand needed to develop record on when/what constitutes a single publication)
- Wolf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television, 162 Cal.App.4th 1107 (court’s role in contract interpretation; three-step extrinsic-evidence approach)
- Winet v. Price, 4 Cal.App.4th 1159 (threshold ambiguity determination reviewed de novo)
- City of Hope Nat. Medical Center v. Genentech, Inc., 43 Cal.4th 375 (when intent-finding depends on credibility of extrinsic evidence, those issues are factual and for the jury)