A federal judge from the District of Connecticut has dismissed, in part, the lawsuit of the widow of wrestler Owen Hart, who sued World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and its CEOs, Vince and Linda McMahon, after the defendants used Hart’s image without her permission long after the wrestler died in a accident in 1999.
The judge dismissed the portion of plaintiff Martha Hart’s lawsuit that applied to the McMahons, but left mostly intact her suit against WWE, alleging unpaid royalties.
Of relevance in the case was a 1996 contract between Owen and the WWE, which governed the use of Owen’s image, and his right to receive profits from WWE’s use of his image.
In 2010, Martha Hart, on behalf of herself and the Estate of Owen Hart, filed suit against the defendants alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, false association, invasion of privacy, accounting, violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, violation of the right of publicity, and negligent supervision.
The WWE and the McMahons each moved to dismiss the claim.
“The plaintiff’s complaint centers on WWE’s production and sale of a video called Hart & Soul: The Hart Family Anthology,” wrote the court. “The video purports to chronicle the history of the Hart family of wrestlers, including Owen, his parents, and siblings. It uses Owen’s legal name, and contains several family photos of him. The plaintiff claims that the defendants have used Owen’s name and likeness to associate him with WWE, which has tarnished the reputation of the Foundation (that Martha Hart started after her husband’s death). Martha also alleges that WWE, under the direction of the McMahons, has made other commercial uses of Owen’s name and likeness, including multiple DVDs, television programs, the WWE website, and online subscription service through WWE.com and the WWE Encyclopedia.”
Addressing the breach of contract claim, the court concluded that that claim failed because the plaintiff did not “plead a plausible claim that WWE breached its contract. … Thus, the motion to dismiss count three, unauthorized use of intellectual property, is granted.”
The plaintiff “also alleged that the defendants breached the Booking Agreement by failing to pay royalties they owed,” wrote the court. “(Under the agreement), Owen — and now his Estate — is entitled to licensed product royalties from commercial products using Owen’s Original and/or New Intellectual Property.” This time, the court sided with the plaintiff, noting that “the obligation to pay royalties for use of ‘New Intellectual Property’ is not affected by Owen’s death, and WWE’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.”
The court then shifted its focus to the unjust enrichment claim.
“WWE (argues) that Martha’s unjust enrichment claim must fail because it is based only on its alleged breach of contract, and thus breach of contract, not unjust enrichment, is the appropriate cause of action,” wrote the court. “Martha does not dispute that an unjust enrichment claim cannot be based on a breach of contract. Instead, Martha argues that her unjust enrichment claim is based on WWE’s use of Owen’s legal name. According to Martha, Owen’s legal name was either not included as ‘Original Intellectual Property,’ or was included and WWE’s right to it expired on May 23, 1999.
“Again, this claim must fail as implausible because Martha has failed to allege that Owen’s legal name was not also his ring name. If Owen’s legal name was also his ring name, then WWE had a contractual right to use it, and there can be no claim for unjust enrichment. Accordingly, WWE’s motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim is granted.”
Next, the court examined the plaintiff’s claim that the defendants “impermissibly have used Owen Hart’s name and likeness beyond the rights that were granted to them for ‘New Intellectual Property in the Booking Agreement,’ and that in doing so, the defendants have invaded Owen’s privacy and violated his right of publicity.”
The plaintiff listed three instances in which the defendants used Owen’s name and likeness in connection to the Hart & Soul DVD: (1) the use of Owen’s legal name, (2) the wrestling photos of Owen, and (3) family photos of Owen.
The court granted the defendant’s motion as it related to Owen’s name and wrestling photos. With regard to the latter, it found that the defendant owned the copyright in question.
However, it was less amenable to the motion to dismiss the claim as it related to family photos.
“It is true that Owen consented to the use of his wrestling persona, but nothing suggests that Owen consented to the use of personal family photos,” the court wrote. “Any arguments based on consent must fail at this stage. Thus, WWE’s motion to dismiss the right of publicity/appropriation of likeness claim related to the use of Owen’s family photos is denied.”
In sum, the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss on the following claims: the breach of contract claim regarding the unauthorized use of “Original Intellectual Property,” the negligent supervision claim, the invasion of privacy/unreasonable publicity claim against all defendants, the right of publicity/appropriation of likeness claims regarding the use of Owen’s wrestling photos against all defendants, the right of publicity/appropriation of likeness claim regarding the use of Owen’s name against WWE, all right of publicity/appropriation of likeness claims against Vince and Linda McMahon, the Lanham Act claim, the copyright infringement claim, the unjust enrichment claim, and the CUTPA claim.”
Conversely, the court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss on the following claims:
“the breach of contract claim regarding failure to pay royalties, and the right to publicity/appropriation of likeness claim regarding the use of personal photos against WWE.”
Martha Hart v. World Wrestling Entm’t, INC., et al.; D. Conn.; No. 3:10cv0975 (SRU), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43184; 3/28/12
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Arthur L. Pressman, Gregg A. Rubenstein, Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PRO HAC VICE, Nixon Peabody – Boston, Boston, MA; Jerry S. McDevitt, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, K&L Gates LLP, Pittsburgh, PA; Stacie Boeniger Collier, LEAD ATTORNEY, Nixon Peabody LLP – RI, Providence, RI. (for defendants) Curtis B. Krasik, Jerry S. McDevitt, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PRO HAC VICE, K&L Gates LLP, Pittsburgh, PA; Jonathan B. Tropp, LEAD ATTORNEY, Day Pitney LLP-Stmfd, Stamford, CT.
