Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc.

202 F.2d 866 (1953)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P and D are competitors in the chewing-gum sports card business. P made a contract with a ball-player providing that plaintiff for a stated term should have the exclusive right to use the ball-player's photograph in connection with the sales of plaintiff's gum; the ball-player agreed not to grant any other gum manufacturer a similar right during such term; the contract gave P an option to extend the term for a designated period. P claims that D, knowing of P's contract, deliberately induced the ball-player to authorize D, by a contract with D, to use the player's photograph in connection with the sales of D's gum either during the original or extended term of P's contract. D did use the photograph. P sued D. D contends the contract with P was no more than a release by the ball-player to plaintiff of the liability which, absent the release, P would have incurred in using the ball-player's photograph, because such a use, without his consent, would be an invasion of his right of privacy. D contends the statutory right of privacy is personal and not assignable; therefore, P's contract vested no 'property' right or other legal interest which D's conduct invaded. The court ruled for D and P appealed.