preview

Fullback Steakhouses, Inc. Case Analysis

Decent Essays

Plaintiff, Suzie Starr (“Plaintiff”), brings suit against Fullback Steakhouses, Inc. (“Fullback”) and Fullback’s CEO, John Ritchie for damages arising out of a commercial run by Fullback in August of 2016. The Plaintiff is a prominent health food and lifestyle guru. Fullback Steakhouses, Inc. is a chain of sports bars located and incorporated in New York. John Ritchie serves as CEO of Fullback Steakhouses, Inc., and resides in New York. The commercial advertisement in controversy features a cartoon robot dining at one of Fullback’s dining establishments. The Plaintiff contends that the cartoon robot that appears in the commercial advertisement produced by Fullback misappropriates her likeness and violates New York’s statutory right of privacy. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief; compensatory damages; punitive damages, to the fullest extent permitted by law; an award of interest, costs and attorney’s fees; and such other relief as the court deems appropriate. STATEMENT OF FACTS In August of …show more content…

A portrait or picture, within the meaning of the statute, means “any recognizable likeness of a person”, which may include a drawing, painting, sketch, cartoon, or a caricature. However, to constitute a portrait or picture, the likeness must be to such a degree that the individual’s image is instantly recognizable and not a mere reference to the person. Onassis v. Christian Dior-New York, 472 N.Y.S.2d 254 (Sup. Ct. 1984). Further, while the law does prohibit one from representing themselves as another person, it does not prohibit one from evoking mere characteristics of another individual. Allen v. National Video, Inc., 610 F. Supp. 612 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). In this case, Fullback’s cartoon robot is not a portrait or a picture because Plaintiff’s image is not instantly recognizable in the cartoon robot. The cartoon simply possesses similar traits to those of the

Get Access