Skip to main content
· 10/15/2012

Wayne Charles v. City of Los Angeles

Citations

  • 697 F.3d 1146
  • 40 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2672
  • 2012 WL 4857194
  • 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21281

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that a billboard advertising a television program was subject to the Lanham Act
  • “Where the facts present a close question, ‘strong 19 support’ that the speech should be characterized as commercial speech is found where the 20 speech is an advertisement, the speech refers to a particular product, and the speaker has 21 an economic motivation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Wardlaw, Paez, Rawlinson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.