Bit Parts

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Beat Music's motion to send a class-action consumer dispute to arbitration. Craddock v. Beats Music LLC, 14 C 10301. Class plaintiff Megan Craddock had signed up for a one-week, free trial of Beats Music's streaming application on her cell phone. District Judge Joan H. Lefkow explained that Craddock sued after she “received a text message from an unidentified number, reading, 'Beats Music Free Msg. You may qualify for special offers on Beats Music through AT&T. Redeem here ' '” The class action was based on the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act'(TCPA), 47 U.S.C. '227 et seq. . But Beats argued Craddock was subject to its Term of Use, which mandated arbitration. District Judge Lefkow found: “Craddock's downloading of the application gave rise to the text message at issue, and the content of the message itself referred to Beats Music's website, which is included in the definition of 'Service' set forth in the Terms of Use. Craddock's claims must be arbitrated.” The district judge added: “Craddock argues that her claims should not be arbitrated because her registration for the free trial is, at most, a but-for cause of the text message, which is insufficient to invoke the arbitration clause. Controlling authority, however, makes clear that Craddock's claims are sufficiently related to the services offered by Beats Music.”

No Right of Publicity Claim for Company, But Individual with Same Name as Company Can Proceed

A magistrate for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California declined to extend right of publicity protection to a corporation. But the district court did decide in part that an individual may proceed with a right of publicity claim based on the alleged unauthorized use of a trademark related to the individual's name. Virag S.R.L. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, 3:15-cv-01729. The flooring company Virag, which sponsors auto-racing events, and one of its principals, race-car driver Mirco Virag, sued over the inclusion of the “VIRAG” name in Sony's Gran Turismo 5 and Gran Turismo 6 auto-racing videogames. Magistrate Laurel Beeler first found that “no court has held or even suggested that the right of publicity extends to non-human beings.” Magistrate Beeler emphasized that “[t]o the extent that a corporate plaintiff” in the judicial opinions the plaintiffs cited “was allowed to assert the right of publicity of a human being or group of human beings, the corporate plaintiff was allowed to do so because a human being or group of human beings transferred or assigned his or their right of publicity to the corporate plaintiff.” But Magistrate Beeler went on to note that allege that, in the international racing world, the VIRAG' mark has become a 'personification' of Mirco Virag.” The magistrate then concluded “the court believes Mirco Virag's allegations connecting his identity to the VIRAG' mark are sufficient to defeat the defendants' motion to dismiss '” But the magistrate decided in dismissing the flooring company's trademark claim under the federal Lanham Act: “Based on the plaintiffs' allegations and Gran Turismo 5 and Gran Turismo 6 in their entirety, the court finds that the defendants' use of the VIRAG' mark has at least some artistic relevance to Gran Turismo 5 and Gran Turismo 6.”