Javon Marshall, et al v. ESPN, et al
OPINION filed: The district court s judgment is AFFIRMED. Decision not for publication. Alice M. Batchelder and Raymond M. Kethledge (authoring), Circuit Judges; and Judith E. Levy, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 16a0483n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
JAVON MARSHALL, et al.,
ESPN, et al.,
Aug 17, 2016
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Before: BATCHELDER and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges; and LEVY, District Judge.*
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. To state the plaintiffs’ theory in this case is nearly to
refute it. The theory begins with the assertion that college football and basketball players have a
property interest in their names and images as they appear in television broadcasts of games in
which the players are participants. Thus, the plaintiffs conclude, those broadcasts are illegal
unless licensed by every player on each team. Whether referees, assistant coaches, and perhaps
even spectators have the same rights as putative licensors is unclear from the plaintiffs’ briefs
(and, by all appearances, to the plaintiffs themselves). In any event, the plaintiffs seek to assert
claims under Tennessee law, the Sherman Act, and the Lanham Act on behalf of a putative class
of collegiate players nationwide. The defendants—various college athletic conferences and
television networks, among others—responded in the district court with a motion to dismiss,
which the court granted in a notably sound and thorough opinion.
The Honorable Judith E. Levy, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Michigan, sitting by designation.
No. 15-5753, Marshall, et al. v. ESPN, et al.
To that opinion we have little to add. The plaintiffs claim that, under Tennessee statutory
and common law, college players have a “right of publicity” in their names and images as they
might appear in television broadcasts of football or basketball games in which the plaintiffs
participate. But that argument is a legal fantasy. Specifically, the plaintiffs’ statutory claim
under the Tennessee Personal Rights Protection Act is meritless because that Act expressly
permits the use of any player’s name or likeness in connection with any “sports broadcast.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1107(a). And the plaintiffs’ common-law claim is meritless, as the
district court rather patiently explained, because the Tennessee courts have never recognized any
such right and because, in the meantime, the Tennessee legislature has spoken to the issue
The plaintiffs’ case goes downhill from there. Their claim under the Sherman Act is that
the various defendants have engaged in a horizontal scheme to fix at zero the price of the
plaintiffs’ putative rights to license broadcasts of sporting events in which the plaintiffs
participate. That claim is meritless because, as shown above, those putative rights do not exist.
That leaves the plaintiffs’ claim under the Lanham Act, whose relevant provision bars the
unauthorized use of a person’s name or likeness in commerce when doing so “is likely to cause
confusion” as to whether the person endorses a product. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A). The theory
here is that if, say, ESPN shows a banner for “Tostitos” at the bottom of the screen during a
football game, then consumers might become confused as to whether all the players on the
screen endorse Tostitos. Suffice it to say that ordinary consumers have more sense than the
theory itself does.
The district court’s judgment is affirmed.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?