## Facts

- Eldrick “Tiger” Woods assigned ETW Corporation exclusive rights to exploit his name, image, likeness, signature, and related publicity rights; ETW owned a federal registration for the mark “TIGER WOODS” for various print-related goods.
- Jireh Publishing sold limited-edition prints of Rick Rush’s painting “The Masters of Augusta,” commemorating Woods’s 1997 Masters Tournament victory.
- The artwork portrayed a montage: a large central image of Woods with smaller vignettes, course and crowd scenes, the Augusta National clubhouse, and images of other famous golfers.
- Woods’s name appeared in ancillary materials, including packaging (e.g., envelope flap) and a narrative description accompanying the prints.
- ETW sued asserting Lanham Act claims (infringement, dilution, unfair competition, false advertising) and an Ohio right-of-publicity claim, alleging the prints improperly exploited Woods’s identity and mark.
- Jireh argued the work was constitutionally protected expression and that any use of Woods’s name and likeness was not source-identifying or misleading.

## Issues

1. Whether the sale of an expressive art print depicting Woods, and related uses of his name, created Lanham Act liability for infringement, dilution, unfair competition, or false advertising.
2. Whether the artwork and accompanying materials violated Woods’s right of publicity under Ohio law.
3. How First Amendment protection for expressive works limits trademark and publicity-right claims involving depictions of public figures.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Jireh on all claims.
- The court held the painting and prints were expressive works with substantial creative content and were protected by the First Amendment.
- Woods’s likeness in the artwork did not function as a trademark indicating source, and the record did not show likely consumer confusion or explicit misleading endorsement.
- The use of “TIGER WOODS” in accompanying materials was descriptive and informational as to the subject of the artwork, and not deceptive; dilution was not shown.
- Ohio right-of-publicity law could not be applied to bar the protected depiction of a historic, newsworthy sports achievement in an expressive work.

## Legal Principles

- Expressive works depicting real persons and events receive strong First Amendment protection, even when sold for profit, where the work contains substantial creative or informational content.
- A celebrity image in an artwork is not automatically a trademark use; Lanham Act liability generally requires use as a source identifier and a likelihood of confusion (or an explicitly misleading indication of sponsorship/endorsement).
- Use of a celebrity’s name to identify the subject of an expressive work may be permissible where the use is artistically relevant and not explicitly misleading.
- Trademark dilution requires a showing that the challenged use is likely to blur or tarnish the mark’s distinctiveness; mere reference to a celebrity in a single expressive work tied to a historic event is insufficient on this record.
- Right-of-publicity claims are limited by the First Amendment; expressive depictions that add significant creative elements beyond a literal commercial imitation, particularly when tied to a newsworthy or historical event, are not actionable.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that an artist’s commemorative, montage-style depiction of Tiger Woods’s 1997 Masters victory, and accompanying descriptive references to Woods, were protected expression and did not create trademark or publicity-right liability absent evidence of source-identifying use, likely confusion, or explicit misleading endorsement.


ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publ'g, Inc., 332 F.3d 915 (6th Cir. 2003)