White v. Samsung Electronics Am., Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992 · Property

971 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992)

Updated July 23, 2026

Propertyright of publicityLanham Actcelebrity identitycommercial appropriationidentity appropriationname or likenesscelebrity endorsement

Facts

Samsung and Deutsch created a series of advertisements set in the twenty-first century pairing cultural images with Samsung products. One ad for Samsung VCRs showed a female-shaped robot wearing a blond wig, gown, and jewelry, posed beside a game board recognizable as the Wheel of Fortune set and turning a letter, with the caption "Longest-running game show. 2012 A.D." Defendants referred to it as the "Vanna White" ad, but White neither consented to it nor was paid. White commercially marketed her identity to advertisers and claimed the ad appropriated that identity and falsely suggested her endorsement.

Issue

Whether defendants' robot advertisement could support claims by White under California Civil Code § 3344, California's common law right of publicity, and Lanham Act § 43(a). More specifically, the court considered whether evoking White through a robot and Wheel of Fortune imagery, without using her actual name or likeness, was actionable as appropriation of identity or as false endorsement.

Rule

Under California Civil Code § 3344, liability requires use of another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, and the robot in this case was not White's likeness. Under California common law, the right of publicity is not limited to appropriation of name or likeness; it protects against unauthorized commercial appropriation of a person's identity by whatever means effectively appropriate that identity. For Lanham Act § 43(a), a celebrity claiming false endorsement must show a likelihood of confusion over endorsement, which may be assessed through the Sleekcraft factors.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A home-audio company in Phoenix runs a print ad showing a metallic android on a nightclub stage. The android wears a famous singer's trademark-style rhinestone jacket and holds a microphone, but its face is plainly mechanical and not molded to the singer's actual features.

If the singer sues under California Civil Code § 3344 only, what is the strongest result?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, § 3344 is limited to use of another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness. A mechanical robot or android with selected styling cues, but not the person's actual visual likeness, does not qualify on these facts. The majority expressly distinguished the broader common-law identity claim from the narrower statute.