## Facts

- Mario Andretti and his company, M.A. 500, Inc., licensed Andretti’s name and likeness as a corporate spokesman.
- Andretti contracted with Car Sound Exhaust Systems, Inc. to give Car Sound exclusive rights for four years to use Andretti’s publicity rights for exhaust-system marketing.
- During that contract period, Borla Performance Industries, Inc., a competitor of Car Sound, ran ads using a statement Andretti previously made about Borla’s product.
- Andretti had no prior knowledge of, and did not consent to, Borla’s use of his name or quotation.
- Andretti sued for injunctive relief and damages under multiple theories, including right of publicity, tortious interference, Michigan Consumer Protection Act, quantum meruit, Lanham Act false endorsement/dilution, and state-law unfair competition.
- On damages, Andretti relied on discovery responses referencing documents not filed in the summary-judgment record, an absence of elicited damages in deposition questioning, and a pre-suit demand letter asserting $200,000 that Borla used to support removal jurisdiction.
- Andretti’s interrogatory response on reputational harm asserted only that the industry knew about his exclusive contract, without identifying concrete injury.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment against all monetary-damages claims was proper where plaintiffs failed to present admissible evidence creating a genuine dispute on damages.
2. Whether a permanent injunction barring future unauthorized use of Andretti’s name or quotation was permissible despite failure to prove monetary damages.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing Rule 11 sanctions on Andretti.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion in cost and fee rulings, including Rule 68 post-offer costs and denials of additional costs/fees.

## Decision

- Affirmed summary judgment for Borla on all claims seeking money damages because plaintiffs failed to submit competent evidence of damages in the summary-judgment record.
- Affirmed the permanent injunction prohibiting Borla from using Andretti’s name or quotation without authorization.
- Affirmed Rule 11 sanctions imposed on Andretti.
- Affirmed the Rule 68 post-offer cost shifting and the district court’s denials of additional costs or attorney’s fees to Borla, and denial of costs to Andretti.

## Legal Principles

- At summary judgment, the nonmovant must produce admissible evidence showing a genuine dispute of material fact; unfiled documents referenced in discovery responses do not create a triable issue.
- Generalized assertions of reputational or goodwill harm, without concrete proof (e.g., lost deals, reduced endorsement value, or other measurable harm), are insufficient to support monetary damages.
- A pre-suit demand amount used to establish removal jurisdiction does not constitute proof of actual damages on the merits.
- Equitable relief (including a permanent injunction) may be granted to prevent continued unauthorized commercial use of a person’s identity even when monetary damages are not proven.
- Rule 11 sanctions and cost allocations under Rules 54(d) and 68 are reviewed for abuse of discretion and are generally upheld absent a clear error in judgment.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld a damages-free outcome because plaintiffs failed to place competent damages evidence into the summary-judgment record, while also sustaining an injunction barring further unauthorized advertising use of Andretti’s identity and affirming sanctions and cost-shifting orders as within the district court’s discretion.


Andretti v. Borla Performance Indus., Inc., 426 F.3d 824 (6th Cir. 2005)