Russell Christoff vs. Nestle Usa Inc

1103 Words5 Pages
Name Professor Course Date Russell Christoff Vs. Nestle USA Inc. (S155242) Facts Russell Christoff a professional model, in the year 1986 was paid the amount $250 by Nestle Canada for a photo-shoot where his photos would be used on the label of their product, bricks of coffee. Terms of the contract between the plaintiff Russell and Nestle Canada stipulated that he would be compensated the sum of $2000 in the case the company decided to use his image for other purposes while other applications exempted from their contract remained open for new negotiations. Nestle USA in the year 1997 changed their prior image on the label of their Tasters Choice instant coffee product with a slightly altered image of Christoff without his consent. In the…show more content…
Christoff could also claim compensation for damages in the period Nestle USA used his image provide he could prove that he held no knowledge of his image appearing in the product label. The jury verdict maintained that Nestle USA resulted to appropriation of likeness for commercial purposes irrespective of Christoff unknowing of the fact. The jury also concluded that Christoff had no knowledge of Nestle using his image nor did he suspect that Nestle was using his image for commercial reasons. Christoff received $15,635,850 in damages by verdict of the trial court. Nestle filed for appeal against the trial court judgment and was granted a reversal in the prior ruling. The California court of appeal remanded the case maintaining that the single publication rule directly applied to appropriation of likeness. The court argument was the statute of limitation instigated soon after Nestle first used Christoff image hence he had no claim to compensation since the two-year period exempted by the rule had already expired. Canada court of Appeal asserted that the only reasons liable for a different ruling would be in the eventuality that Nestle prevented Christoff from discovery of his image on the product label hence voiding the single publication rule or in the event of republishing. The court of appeal used the decision to the case of Shively vs. Bozanich as reference in judging Christoff vs. Nestle ltd. Case. Shively vs. Bozanich cause of action manifested immediately the

    More about Russell Christoff vs. Nestle Usa Inc

      Open Document