Legal Remedies for Promotional Use of the President's Name ( 1977 )


Menu:
  •                                                                     May 3, 1977
    78-79     MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE COUNSEL
    TO THE PRESIDENT
    Promotional Use of the President’s Name
    (
    15 U.S.C. § 1051
    , 
    15 U.S.C. § 45
    )
    This is in response to your memorandum o f March 8, 1977, requesting our
    advice as to possible legal remedies for promotional use o f the President’s name
    or likeness. From the letters enclosed, it appears that you are concerned with
    persons who seek to identify the President with a particular commercial product
    for promotional reasons, including trademark registration, and not with the
    vendors of pictorial material. The scope of this memorandum is accordingly
    limited to remedies for appropriation o f the President’s name for advertising or
    promotional purposes.
    No Federal law restricts the use o f the President’s name or likeness as such.
    Except for the law governing the registration of trademarks, limits on the
    commercial appropriation o f an individual’s name are primarily a matter of
    State law.
    1.    Federal registration o f trademarks is governed by 15 U .S.C . § 1051 et
    seq. Section 1052 provides that:
    No trade-mark . . . shall be refused registration on the principal
    register on account of its nature unless it—
    (a) Consists o f or comprises . . . m atter which may dispar­
    age or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or
    dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring
    them into contem pt, or disrepute.
    (c) Consists o f or comprises a name, portrait, or signature
    identifying a particular living individual except by his
    written consent . . . .
    The Patent Office may apply this section and refuse registration on its own
    motion. E .g ., A pplication o f Continental Baking C o ., 390 F. (2d) 747 (CCPA
    1968). In addition, any person damaged by registration may object within 30
    days of the publication of the proposed mark in the Official Gazette of the Patent
    356
    Office. 15 U .S.C . § 1063. A registration that violates 15 U .S.C . § 1052(a) or
    (c) may be cancelled at any time on petition of a person who is damaged by its
    use. 15 U .S.C . § 1064(c). Findings of fact by the Patent Office on these issues
    are controlling unless overcome on judicial review by evidence “ which in
    character and amount carries thorough conviction.” Redken L a b o ra to ries, Inc.
    v. Clairol, Inc., 501 F. (2d) 1403 (9th Cir. 1974). Resort to the trademark law
    is therefore available for the purpose of preventing or cancelling the registration
    of trademarks using the President’s name or likeness.
    2. The Federal Trade Commission, (the Commission) may have the power
    to prevent the commercial use o f the President’s name in some circumstances.
    Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U .S.C . § 45
    (Supp. V 1975), authorizes the Commission to prevent “ unfair and deceptive
    practices” in commerce, and it is well settled that this includes the power to
    prohibit deceptive or misleading advertisem ents.1 An advertisement is consid­
    ered misleading if it creates a false impression of the source of the product or it
    implies a nonexistent endorsem ent.2 Furthermore, the Commission considers
    the effect of the entire advertisement on the buying public as a whole, including
    “ the ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous,” in determining whether it is
    misleading.3 The Commission may find the total effect misleading, because
    incomplete or out of context, even if any statement made is literally true.4
    Under these principles, the Commission could probably prohibit the use of
    advertisements, labels, or trade names which implied that the President
    endorsed, profited from, or was connected with the sale of a particular product.
    The breadth of the test for misleading effect, coupled with the prestige o f the
    Presidency and President C arter’s well-known background, would probably
    allow the Commission to eliminate most of the attempts to attach the
    President’s name to peanuts and peanut products.5
    3. The States provide various additional remedies for unconsented use of an
    individual’s name or likeness in advertising. The expansion of the First
    Amendment to limit State power to protect the privacy of public figures and to
    regulate commercial advertising do not appear to affect State power to prevent
    'E .g., Resort Car Rental System, Inc. v. FTC. 518 F. (2d) 962 (9th Cir. 1975); FTC v. Sterling
    Drug, Inc.. 317 F. (2d) 669 (2d Cir. 1963); Aronberg v. FTC. 132 F. (2d) 165 (7th Cir. 1942). See
    generally. FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.. 380 U .S. 374 (1965).
    2FTC v. Roval Milling Co.. 288 U .S . 212., 216-217 (1933); Niresk Industries. Inc. v. FTC. 278
    F. (2d) 337, 341 (7th C ir.); Howe v. FTC. 148 F_ (2d) 561 (9th Cir. 1945).
    }Aronberg v. FTC. 132 F. (2d) 165, 167 (7th Cir. 1942).
    *FTC v. Sterling Drug. Inc.. 317.F. (2d) 669. 674-75 (2d Cir. 1963); P. LorillardCo. v. FTC.
    186 F. (2d) 52. 58 (4th Cir. 1950).
    5It should be noted that the FTC has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the Act. AlfredDunhill Ltd.
    V. Interstate Cigar Co., Inc.. 499 F. (2d) 232 (2d Cir. 1974); Holloway v. Bristol-Myers Corp.,
    485 F. (2d) 986 (D .C . Cir. 1973); Carlson v. Coca-Cola Co.. 483 F. (2d) 279 (9th Cir. 1973).
    357
    the unconsented appropriation o f an individual’s name for advertising
    purposes.6
    John M . H      arm on
    Acting A ssistan t A ttorney G eneral
    Office o f L egal Counsel
    6T he First A m endm ent protects the publication o f inform ation about public figures against State
    defam ation or privacy law unless the publication was m ade with actual knowledge o f or reckless
    indifference to its falsehood. Time, Inc. v. Hill. 385 U .S. 374 (1967); New York Times Co. v.
    Sullivan. 376 U .S. 254 (1964). Last term , the Suprem e Court held that the First Am endm ent also
    protects the right to publish and to receive truthful com m ercial advertising o f lawful activities.
    Virginia State Board o f Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council. Inc., 425 U .S . 748,
    769-70, 773 (1976). See also, Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U .S. 809, 825-26 (1975). The Court was
    careful to state, how ever, that it saw no obstacle in its opinion to the regulations of deceptive or
    m isleading advertising. Id. at 771-72. See also 425 U .S . at 775-81 (Stew art, J ., concurring).
    358
    

Document Info

Filed Date: 5/3/1977

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/29/2017