Maremont v. SUSAN FREDMAN DESIGN GROUP, LTD.
772 F. Supp. 2d 967
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- Maremont filed Dec 9, 2010 alleging Lanham Act false endorsement, Illinois Right of Publicity Act, and common law privacy claims against SFDG and Susan Fredman.
- Defendants moved to dismiss (12(b)(6)) and for summary judgment; court treats as 12(b)(6) motion due to reliance on complaint allegations only.
- Court analyzes whether Defendants used Maremont's name and likeness in a commercial context via posts/tweets impersonating her.
- Facts allege impersonations occurred beginning September 2009 and continued through December 11, 2009, causing alleged harm and distress.
- Maremont alleges defendants continued impersonations after she requested cessation and changed her social media passwords in Dec 2009.
- Court grants in part and denies in part motion; allows amendment and sets deadline for amended complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lanham Act false endorsement viability | Maremont alleges Defendants used her identity to promote SFDG's business. | Defendants contend no valid false endorsement claim arises from alleged impersonations. | Claim plausibly stated; Lanham Act claim survives. |
| Timeliness of Right of Publicity Act claim | Continuing violation tolls statute; last act December 11, 2009. | Claims untimely after one year from last act; window closed before suit. | Claim timely under continuing violation rule; not time-barred. |
| Common law privacy claims viability | Two other privacy tort theories (intrusion, false light) remain viable. | RP Act preempts common-law appropriation; intrusion/false light require malice or damages. | Common-law appropriation dismissed; intrusion/false light dismissed without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stayart v. Yahoo! Inc., 651 F. Supp. 2d 873 (E.D. Wis. 2009) (false endorsement may arise without celebrity status)
- Waits v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 978 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1992) (unauthorized use of identity as false association)
- Blair v. Nevada Landing P'ship, 369 Ill. App. 3d 318 (Ill. App. 2006) (continuing violation rule for publicity claims)
- Muzikowski v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 322 F.3d 918 (7th Cir. 2003) (false light/privacy considerations in privacy torts)
- Imperial Apparel, Ltd. v. Cosmo's Designer Direct, Inc., 227 Ill.2d 381 (Ill. 2008) (Right of Publicity Act replaced common law appropriation)
- Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Police of Chicago Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811 (7th Cir. 2009) (summary judgment standards and pleading standards guidance)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (default pleading standard; accept factual allegations as true)