The AFL Philadelphia vs. Krause - Essay Example

The defendant asserted claims under the Lanham Act. The court ruled that the defendant adequately pled the counterclaim and denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim. Case number 81-1415, Christina McCabe, the plaintiff, vs. The Village Voice, Inc., et al, the defendant, was argued from April 10, 1981, and decided on November 1, 1982. The plaintiff, Christina McCabe, claimed damages for defamation and assault of privacy.

The Village Voice, a weekly newspaper, published a nude picture of McCabe, which had been taken by Donald Herron in her bathtub. This issue published pictures of other people with most of them partially or totally nude. McCabe had not met Herron before the day that he took her the picture. However, when she was introduced to the photographer, she accepted to be photographed by him. She, however, did not say anything when the photographer said that he would use the photograph in the publication of a book.

Herron then contacted The Village Voice and enquired whether they would be interested in publishing his work. The plaintiff claimed damages of $7, 000, 000 for defamation and annexation of her privacy. This claim of infringement of privacy had two different claims with distinct constituents: publicity given to private facts and privacy placing an individual in a false light. In this case, the court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the libel and false light claims and denied the motion as to the publishing of private details prerogative.

In the AFL Philadelphia vs. Krause, the court permitted Krause’s Lanham Act and misappropriation entitlements to proceed. Before dealing with the substantive aspects of Krause’s trademark violation prerogative, the court had to determine whether Krause had “prudential standing” to convey the Lanham Act prerogative. The court principally depended on the five-factor test expressed in Conte Bros. Auto, Inc, vs. Quaker State-Slick 500, Inc. (1998). These factors include: 1) the nature of the alleged damage on the plaintiff, 2) the directness of the indirectness of the claimed damage, 3) the propinquity of inaccessibility of the plaintiff to the asserted injurious conduct, 4) the degree of assumption of the injury claim, and 5) the risk of replicative damages.

All the factors were viewed equally, with none viewed as influential (Baylson 1). While knowing “the nature of Krause’s damage was to some degree inaccessible from the harm that Congress sought to protect in the Lanham Act”, the court concluded that Krause’s imploring justified prudential standing since the Act safeguards an individual from injury to his or her commercial status and goodwill. In light of this, the court established that the plaintiff had sidetracked some of their reputational injuries to Defendant by relating him with their engagements.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s claim for trademark violation, copyright violation, false advertising and unjust enrichment and held that the email specified that it came from Krause, although in his capacity as an employee of the Soul Football Club (Baylson 1). The court, therefore, held that Krause had sought a probability of misperception adequate to bear a motion to dismiss.