Manziel Tops All Individual NFL Jersey Sales Adidas, Champs Sports Create Instagram Series USA Swimming Launches New Campaign Chevy Lauds Global Benefits Of ManU Deal Marketplace Roundup Sporting KC Names VML Official Marketing Partner NBA To Debut Jerseys With First Names For Xmas Arkansas Files Trademark For Hog Call Chant Patriots Sue Bacardi After Rum Maker Nixed Deal Cycling Teams May Become Fixed Franchises
Upcoming Conferences and Events
SBD/August 1, 2013/Marketing and Sponsorship
Court Ruling Allows Lawsuit Against EA By Former College Players To Proceed
Published August 1, 2013
NOW WHAT? Keller attorney Steve Berman said, "We expect that when we appear before the trial court again this fall, the defendants will have a very difficult time mounting a new defense for their blatant exploitation of student-athletes." EA Senior Dir of Corporate Communications John Reseburg said that the company was "disappointed with the ruling and would 'seek further court review'" (S.F. CHRONICLE, 8/1). Keller attorney Rob Carey said, "Because we won against EA, we will be able to go against the NCAA for its looking the other way and increasing its royalty payments by using the likenesses of the students." ESPN.com's Darren Rovell noted the case "can now proceed along with an identical case in New Jersey," which was brought by former Rutgers QB Ryan Hart. An appellate court there in May also "denied EA's First Amendment claim" (ESPN.com, 7/31). Meanwhile, ESPN's Len Elmore said the ruling will have "some impact" on college sports "depending on what the remedy is." The penalty "may ultimately bankrupt the NCAA and certainly it will force a new policy going forward as to how you televise games, how you treat players." Players may have to "negotiate individually their right of publicity." He said, "Sure, they should pay these guys. But in the long-term I hope it doesn't change the landscape of college sports" ("Closing Bell With Maria Bartiromo," CNBC, 7/31).
OTHER SUIT DISMISSED: The AP's Paul Elias reported the court in a separate ruling "tossed out Jim Brown's lawsuit against EA, even though Brown made similar -- but not identical -- allegations as Keller." Brown "argued that his inclusion in the Madden games suggested he endorsed the product." Brown attorney Ron Katz said that his client "filed his lawsuit alleging a violation of the Hall of Famer’s 'trademark' rather than Keller’s claim that EA violated his 'right to publicity.'" Authors, filmmakers and others are "allowed to use famous people’s 'trademarks' as long as they are creating new artwork and not seeking to profit specifically from the celebrity" (AP, 7/31).