Fortnite creator, Epic Games, prevails in dismissing all but false endorsement claim brought by saxophonist Leo Pellegrino over inclusion of his "Signature Move" as a purchasable emote in-game.
LEO PELLEGRINO v. EPIC GAMES, INC., No. CV 19-1806, 2020 WL 1531867,(E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2020)
Topic: Trademark Misappropriation, Use of Likeness
Plaintiff Leo Pellegrino commenced this action against Defendant Epic Games, Inc. (“Epic”) asserting that Epic misappropriated his likeness and trademark, i.e., his “Signature Move.” The Complaint asserts that Epic’s misappropriation violated Pellegrino’s right to publicity and infringed and diluted his trademark. Epic has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We held a hearing on the Motion on March 3, 2020. For the reasons that follow, we grant Epic’s Motion in part and deny it in part.
The Complaint alleges that Leo Pellegrino “is a professional baritone saxophone player and member of the ‘brass house’ group ‘Too Many Zooz.’ ” (Compl. ¶ 2.) Using his unique anatomy—specifically his externally rotatable feet—Pellegrino was able to create the Signature Move, a series of movements that express his own unique dancing style. (Id. ¶ 17.) Pellegrino incorporates and “executes the Signature Move [in] every one of his musical performances.” (Id. ¶ 24.) By executing the Signature Move in concert and festival performances in front of hundreds of thousands of people and in online videos with millions of views, his Signature Move has grown in popularity and has become inextricably linked to his identity. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 24.)
Epic Games, Inc. is a video game developer who created the game “Fortnite Battle Royale.” (Id. ¶¶ 10, 28.) Fortnite was released in September 2017 and since then has become one of the most popular video games ever. (Id. ¶ 7.) In fact, because of Fortnite’s success, Epic’s value has grown from approximately $825 million to approximately $15 billion. (Id. ¶ 38.) Fortnite is a battle royale video game, a “genre that blends the survival, exploration and scavenging elements of a survival game with last-man-standing gameplay.” (Id. ¶ 28.) In this format, “up to 100 players, alone, in pairs or in groups, compete to be the last player or group alive” by using weapons and other forms of violence to eliminate other players. (Id. ¶ 29.)
Epic does not charge players money to purchase Fortnite; instead, players can download and play Fortnite for free. (Id. ¶ 30.) Fortnite generates revenue using its in-game electronic storefront where it sells virtual content that players can use while playing Fortnite. (Id.) This buyable virtual content includes customizations for the Fortnite digital avatars like “ ‘emotes’ ” that enable the Fortnite avatars to perform dances or movements. (Id.)
Epic creates these “emotes by copying and coding dances and movements directly from popular videos, movies, and television shows without consent.” (Id. ¶ 34.) Emotes are popular among players because emotes allow players to personalize their Fortnite experience. (Id. ¶ 33.) Emotes have become popular even outside of Fortnite. (Id.) For example, professional athletes perform celebrations based on Fortnite emotes and other people post social media videos of themselves executing the emotes. (Id.)
One of these emotes, the “ ‘Phone It In’ ” emote, “is identical to Pellegrino’s Signature Move.” (Id. ¶ 41.) The name “ ‘Phone It In’ ” is a reference “to Pellegrino’s appearance in a Google Pixel 2 phone commercial in 2017.” (Id. ¶ 5.) Without Pellegrino’s consent, Epic sells the Phone It In emote for 800 V-Bucks (Fortnite’s virtual currency), which is worth approximately $8. (Id. ¶¶ 30, 40.) Once a player buys this emote and equips his or her avatar with it, “the player’s avatar can execute the Signature Move during Fortnite gameplay.” (Id. ¶ 41.) Many Fortnite players worldwide immediately recognized the Phone It In emote in Fortnite as Pellegrino’s Signature Move. (Id.) Epic thus uses Pellegrino’s Signature Move embodied in the Phone It In emote to create the false impression that Pellegrino is endorsing the game. (Id. ¶ 47.) Other players, however, have the false impression that the Phone It In emote was Epic’s original creation because Epic does not credit Pellegrino as the Signature Move’s creator and owner. (Id. ¶¶ 41, 47.)
The Complaint asserts eight causes of action under state and federal law. The first cause of action asserts a claim for unauthorized use of Pellegrino’s name or likeness in violation of 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 8316. (Id. ¶¶ 50-60.) The second cause of action asserts a claim for misappropriation of publicity under Pennsylvania common law. (Id. ¶¶ 61-71.) The third cause of action asserts a claim for invasion of privacy by misappropriation of identity under Pennsylvania common law. (Id. ¶¶ 72-74.) The fourth cause of action asserts a claim for unjust enrichment under Pennsylvania common law for using Pellegrino’s likeness and trademark. (Id. ¶¶ 75-77.) The fifth cause of action asserts a claim for unfair competition under Pennsylvania common law for using Pellegrino’s likeness and trademark. (Id. ¶¶ 78-83.) The sixth cause of action asserts a claim for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). (Id. ¶¶ 84-92.) The seventh cause of action asserts a claim for trademark infringement under Pennsylvania common law. (Id. ¶¶ 93-100.) The eighth cause of action asserts a claim for trademark dilution under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). (Id. ¶¶ 101-108.)2
We grant Epic’s Motion to Dismiss as to Counts I-V, Counts VII-VIII, and Count VI insofar as it based on a false designation of origin theory. However, we deny Epic’s Motion as to Count VI insofar as Count VI is based on a false endorsement theory, and we therefore permit Pellegrino to proceed on this claim alone.
https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3187&context=historical
Topic: Trademark Misappropriation, Use of Likeness
Plaintiff Leo Pellegrino commenced this action against Defendant Epic Games, Inc. (“Epic”) asserting that Epic misappropriated his likeness and trademark, i.e., his “Signature Move.” The Complaint asserts that Epic’s misappropriation violated Pellegrino’s right to publicity and infringed and diluted his trademark. Epic has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We held a hearing on the Motion on March 3, 2020. For the reasons that follow, we grant Epic’s Motion in part and deny it in part.
The Complaint alleges that Leo Pellegrino “is a professional baritone saxophone player and member of the ‘brass house’ group ‘Too Many Zooz.’ ” (Compl. ¶ 2.) Using his unique anatomy—specifically his externally rotatable feet—Pellegrino was able to create the Signature Move, a series of movements that express his own unique dancing style. (Id. ¶ 17.) Pellegrino incorporates and “executes the Signature Move [in] every one of his musical performances.” (Id. ¶ 24.) By executing the Signature Move in concert and festival performances in front of hundreds of thousands of people and in online videos with millions of views, his Signature Move has grown in popularity and has become inextricably linked to his identity. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 24.)
Epic Games, Inc. is a video game developer who created the game “Fortnite Battle Royale.” (Id. ¶¶ 10, 28.) Fortnite was released in September 2017 and since then has become one of the most popular video games ever. (Id. ¶ 7.) In fact, because of Fortnite’s success, Epic’s value has grown from approximately $825 million to approximately $15 billion. (Id. ¶ 38.) Fortnite is a battle royale video game, a “genre that blends the survival, exploration and scavenging elements of a survival game with last-man-standing gameplay.” (Id. ¶ 28.) In this format, “up to 100 players, alone, in pairs or in groups, compete to be the last player or group alive” by using weapons and other forms of violence to eliminate other players. (Id. ¶ 29.)
Epic does not charge players money to purchase Fortnite; instead, players can download and play Fortnite for free. (Id. ¶ 30.) Fortnite generates revenue using its in-game electronic storefront where it sells virtual content that players can use while playing Fortnite. (Id.) This buyable virtual content includes customizations for the Fortnite digital avatars like “ ‘emotes’ ” that enable the Fortnite avatars to perform dances or movements. (Id.)
Epic creates these “emotes by copying and coding dances and movements directly from popular videos, movies, and television shows without consent.” (Id. ¶ 34.) Emotes are popular among players because emotes allow players to personalize their Fortnite experience. (Id. ¶ 33.) Emotes have become popular even outside of Fortnite. (Id.) For example, professional athletes perform celebrations based on Fortnite emotes and other people post social media videos of themselves executing the emotes. (Id.)
One of these emotes, the “ ‘Phone It In’ ” emote, “is identical to Pellegrino’s Signature Move.” (Id. ¶ 41.) The name “ ‘Phone It In’ ” is a reference “to Pellegrino’s appearance in a Google Pixel 2 phone commercial in 2017.” (Id. ¶ 5.) Without Pellegrino’s consent, Epic sells the Phone It In emote for 800 V-Bucks (Fortnite’s virtual currency), which is worth approximately $8. (Id. ¶¶ 30, 40.) Once a player buys this emote and equips his or her avatar with it, “the player’s avatar can execute the Signature Move during Fortnite gameplay.” (Id. ¶ 41.) Many Fortnite players worldwide immediately recognized the Phone It In emote in Fortnite as Pellegrino’s Signature Move. (Id.) Epic thus uses Pellegrino’s Signature Move embodied in the Phone It In emote to create the false impression that Pellegrino is endorsing the game. (Id. ¶ 47.) Other players, however, have the false impression that the Phone It In emote was Epic’s original creation because Epic does not credit Pellegrino as the Signature Move’s creator and owner. (Id. ¶¶ 41, 47.)
The Complaint asserts eight causes of action under state and federal law. The first cause of action asserts a claim for unauthorized use of Pellegrino’s name or likeness in violation of 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 8316. (Id. ¶¶ 50-60.) The second cause of action asserts a claim for misappropriation of publicity under Pennsylvania common law. (Id. ¶¶ 61-71.) The third cause of action asserts a claim for invasion of privacy by misappropriation of identity under Pennsylvania common law. (Id. ¶¶ 72-74.) The fourth cause of action asserts a claim for unjust enrichment under Pennsylvania common law for using Pellegrino’s likeness and trademark. (Id. ¶¶ 75-77.) The fifth cause of action asserts a claim for unfair competition under Pennsylvania common law for using Pellegrino’s likeness and trademark. (Id. ¶¶ 78-83.) The sixth cause of action asserts a claim for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). (Id. ¶¶ 84-92.) The seventh cause of action asserts a claim for trademark infringement under Pennsylvania common law. (Id. ¶¶ 93-100.) The eighth cause of action asserts a claim for trademark dilution under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). (Id. ¶¶ 101-108.)2
We grant Epic’s Motion to Dismiss as to Counts I-V, Counts VII-VIII, and Count VI insofar as it based on a false designation of origin theory. However, we deny Epic’s Motion as to Count VI insofar as Count VI is based on a false endorsement theory, and we therefore permit Pellegrino to proceed on this claim alone.
Full case transcript available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3187&context=historical
Comments
Post a Comment