Chapter

It was irrelevant that Motschenbacher could not be

From Property: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 by Christian

Concepts

  1. Voice Identity

    "identified in the ad. The ad suggested that it was he. The ad did so by emphasizing signs or symbols associated with him. In the same way the defendants here used an imitation to convey the impressio

  2. Robot Advertisement

    "White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 971 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992). Blaine Greenberg, John Genga, Hill Wynne Troop & Meisinger, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. Anthony Liebig, Kenn

  3. Identity Appropriation

    "II. Right of Publicity White next argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants on White’s common law right of publicity claim. In Eastwood v. Superior Court, 149 Ca

It was irrelevant that Motschenbacher could not be | Property: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 | Bifalgorithm | Bifalgorithm