New Search

133581P.pdf   05/21/2015  James Marshall  v.  National Football League
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-3581
                          and No:  13-3582
                          and No:  13-3666
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Bye, Author, with Smith and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Sports law. In this class-action, nearly 25,000 former NFL 
   players sued the NFL alleging that NFL Films, the commercial film-making 
   wing of the league, had used their likenesses in a variety of videos in 
   violation of their publicity rights; following extensive negotiations, the 
   parties reached a settlement which creates a licensing agency to assist 
   former players in marketing their publicity rights and establishes up to a 
   $42 million payout to members of the class. Here, six former players 
   challenged the settlement on the grounds that it did not provide for 
   direct payouts to former players and was not fair, reasonable and 
   adequate. Held, the district court did not abuse its discretion in 
   approving the settlement as it provides a direct benefit to all class 
   members and was fair and reasonable considering the complexity and expense 
   of further litigation, the limited amount of opposition and the merits of 
   the plaintiffs' case. Judge Smith, concurring. 
  
143428P.pdf   02/26/2016  John Frederick Dryer  v.  National Football League
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-3428
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Wollman and Bye, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Sports Law. In action alleging NFL Films violated the 
   plaintiff players' rights under the right-of-publicity laws of various 
   states, as well as their rights under the Lanham Act, the district court 
   did not err in granting the NFL's motion for summary judgment; the 
   Copyright Act preempted the players' right-of-publicity claims; because 
   the plaintiffs provide no evidence that the films contain "misleading or 
   false statements" regarding their current endorsement of the NFL, their 
   claim of false endorsement under the Lanham Act fails as a matter of law.