## Facts

- Woody Allen, a well-known filmmaker and performer, did not consent to any advertisement using his identity or likeness.
- National Video, Inc., a video rental chain, ran a print advertisement promoting a “V.I.P. Card.”
- The advertisement used a photograph of Phil Boroff, a “Woody Allen look-alike,” posed holding a National Video V.I.P. card and smiling.
- The ad included prominent visual references to films publicly associated with Allen, placed in the scene to reinforce the association.
- The advertisement’s text stated: “Become a V.I.P. at National Video. We’ll Make You Feel Like a Star.”
- National admitted it intended to evoke Allen’s image but denied any intent to claim Boroff was Allen or that Allen endorsed National.
- Allen sued under New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51, a right-of-publicity theory, and the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) for false or misleading endorsement.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; Allen cross-moved for summary judgment.
- Smith and Boroff asserted cross-claims against National relating to contract, disclaimer and media-use limits, and indemnity; National disputed contract formation and relied on an alleged release.

## Issues

1. Whether using a deliberate look-alike with contextual cues referencing a celebrity constitutes use of the celebrity’s “name, portrait or picture” for advertising without consent under N.Y. Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51.
2. Whether the advertisement was likely to cause consumer confusion as to sponsorship or approval, creating Lanham Act § 43(a) false endorsement liability, despite not using the celebrity’s actual name or photograph.
3. Whether Smith and Boroff were entitled to summary judgment against National on asserted contract/disclaimer/media-scope and indemnity cross-claims.

## Decision

- The court granted Allen’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment on Allen’s claims.
- The court held the advertisement violated N.Y. Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 by appropriating Allen’s identity for advertising without consent through a look-alike and reinforcing visual references.
- The court held the advertisement violated Lanham Act § 43(a) because it was likely to mislead consumers into believing Allen endorsed or was associated with National.
- The court granted in part and denied in part Smith and Boroff’s motion for summary judgment against National on their cross-claims, leaving some contract/release issues for further development.
- The court granted motions by Allen and National to amend their pleadings.

## Legal Principles

- Under N.Y. Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51, liability can arise from an advertisement’s use of a person’s identity when the depiction is a “portrait or picture” in substance—i.e., a representation readily identifiable as the person—even if achieved through a look-alike rather than an actual photograph.
- An advertiser cannot avoid §§ 50–51 by substituting a look-alike where the overall presentation is designed to trade on the celebrity’s persona for commercial gain.
- Lanham Act § 43(a) reaches false endorsement: an ad violates the statute if its overall impression is likely to cause consumer confusion about a person’s sponsorship, approval, or association, regardless of the advertiser’s stated lack of intent.
- Commercial advertising that appropriates a celebrity’s identity to sell a product receives less constitutional protection than expressive or parodic uses.

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment for Woody Allen because National’s look-alike advertisement, reinforced by Allen-linked film imagery, appropriated his identity in violation of N.Y. Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 and was likely to mislead consumers into believing he endorsed National in violation of Lanham Act § 43(a); related cross-claims between the look-alike, his agent, and National were resolved only in part at summary judgment.


Allen v. Nat'l Video, Inc., 610 F. Supp. 612 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)