June Toney v. L'OreaL Usa, Inc., the Wella Corporation, and Wella Personal Care of North America, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding Illinois right of publicity claim not preempted after finding that the state law requires a showing of the defendant’s “commercial purpose”
• noting that “[t]he basis of [the plaintiff’s] right of publicity claim concerns the message [that] the plaintiff endorses, or appears to endorse the product in question”
• finding no cop- yright preemption of IPRA claim “applying the facts of this case to the requirements for preemp- tion.”
• “The basis of a right of publicity claim concerns the message — whether the plaintiff endorses, or appears to endorse the product in ques tion.”
• right of publicity claim based on defendant’s use of a photograph of plaintiff on packaging for a hair product not preempted
• “[T]o avoid preemption, a state law must regulate conduct that is qualitatively distinguishable from that governed by federal copyright law — i.e., conduct other than reproduction, adaptation, publication, performance, and display”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).