Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Lutz v. De Laurentiis

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 29, 1989No. B029439Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

ROTH, P. J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I concur in the court’s decision that in this case there can be but one cause of action, for unfair competition. I would, however, also uphold the trial court’s determination that plaintiffs cannot, as a matter of law, allege a secondary meaning.

By this action the Lutzes, despite having been unsuccessful in earlier attempts to establish that anyone who writes about Amityville invades their privacy and misappropriates their right of publicity,1 and despite having surrendered to defendants’ predecessors an interest in the copyright in the book written by…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., Nintendo of America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
  2. Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences v. BensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1983
  4. Nancy Sinatra v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., an Ohio Corporation, Young & Rubicam, Inc., Anew York CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1970
  5. Jackson v. Universal International Pictures Inc.California Supreme Court · 1950

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API