Ting Ji v. Bose Corp.
626 F.3d 116
1st Cir.2010Background
- Ji participated in a 2004 photo shoot and signed a Voucher and a broad Release granting extensive rights to her images.
- Bose used a Ji image on packaging/promotional media for the 3.2.1 System, with Ji barely recognizable from behind a couch.
- Ji sued in federal court for false endorsement, Florida publicity/right-to-publicity, privacy, and later Massachusetts 93A claims; White was added as a defendant.
- During discovery, Bose resisted production of its sales data; the district court granted partial summary judgment on the Lanham Act claim and limited discovery to usage data for damages under §540.08.
- The district court allowed production of usage metrics (units, displays, CDs) but not full sales figures; trial followed with a jury awarding $10,000 in damages.
- On cross-appeals, the First Circuit affirmed in full, addressing damages measure, summary-judgment preservation, and attorneys’ fees issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damages measure under § 540.08 | Ji argues damages are royalty-based and require sales data. | Bose contends usage data suffices under § 540.08 and that royalty data is not mandated. | Usage data proper; no need for sales data |
| Royalty instruction and possible error | Ji requested a royalty-based instruction including sales, and a separate royalty method. | District court did not abuse by not giving the separate instruction and by charging generally for damages. | No plain error; instruction omission did not alter the verdict |
| Preservation of the summary judgment challenge on Voucher vs Release | Ji contends there was a pure legal question about control of rights. | Bose/White preserved the issue via JMOL; argument was preserved for appeal. | Challenge waived; denial of summary judgment reviewable only via JMOL, which was not properly raised |
| Attorneys' fees: exceptional case standard | Ji contends the Lanham Act claim was baseless and warranted fees to Bose. | District court properly weighed factors and denied fees; no abuse of discretion. | Denial affirmed; no manifest abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2001) (factors in false endorsement cases)
- University Computing Co. v. Lykes-Youngstown Corp., 504 F.2d 504 (5th Cir. 1974) (royalty concept in damages context)
- MCI WorldCom Network Servs. v. Mastec, Inc., 995 So.2d 221 (Fla. 2008) (Florida damages principles)
- Jensen v. Phillips Screw Co., 546 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2008) (sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927; standard)
- Gray v. Genlyte Group, Inc., 289 F.3d 128 (1st Cir. 2002) (preservation requirements for trial errors)
- Elliott v. S.D. Warren Co., 134 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998) (strict Rule 51 objection requirements)