3:14-cv-00999
N.D. Cal.Mar 3, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Dora Wong sues Golden State Auction Gallery, Inc. and Calvin P. Wong for alleged violations of California Civil Code § 3344 and§ 17200.
- Wong alleges her name was knowingly used without consent to advertise or sell a Chinese calligraphy piece.
- Dai, an art dealer, initially handled the calligraphy and Wong’s appraisal by C.C. Wang was associated with it.
- Golden State later auctioned the calligraphy, with Wong’s name appearing in the March 2013 catalog.
- Wong’s name removal from catalogs occurred after a friend/associate of Wong asked Wong to remove it prior to auction.
- The court denies partial summary judgment and finds genuine disputes of material fact on knowledge, appropriation, consent, and injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowing use for advertising | Wong claims defendants knowingly used her name for advertising. | Wong's name use was a mistake or inadvertent; not knowing use. | Genuine disputes preclude summary judgment. |
| Appropriation for defendant's advantage; incidental use | Use of Wong’s name/paper aided defendants’ commercial purposes. | Use may be incidental or not intended to exploit Wong’s value. | Disputes remain on whether use was for defendant’s advantage; incidental-use doctrine contested. |
| Lack of consent and injury | Use occurred without Wong’s consent and caused injury. | Consent and injury are disputed or not proven. | Court does not resolve these issues due to other material factual disputes. |
| Personal liability of Mr. Wong | Mr. Wong may be personally liable as an officer/director. | No alter-ego liability shown; issue not reached. | Court does not decide personal liability at this stage; denied as to extent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keller v. Electronic Arts Inc., 724 F.3d 1268 (9th Cir. 2013) (elements of right of publicity and knowledge considerations discussed)
- Stewart v. Rolling Stone LLC, 181 Cal. App. 4th 664 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (incidental use doctrine and publicity rights considerations)
- Perkins v. LinkedIn Corp., 53 F. Supp. 3d 1222 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (incidental-use analysis and role of publicity value)