## Facts

- Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. and Authentic Hendrix, L.L.C. owned and licensed trademarks associated with Jimi Hendrix and marketed Hendrix-related merchandise.
- Hendrixlicensing.com Ltd. and Andrew Pitsicalis marketed or licensed Hendrix-related merchandise and used “Hendrix” in domain names including “hendrixlicensing.com” and “hendrixartwork.com.”
- Experience Hendrix sued under the Lanham Act and Washington’s Consumer Protection Act (CPA), among other theories, alleging trademark infringement and unfair practices.
- A jury found defendants liable under the Lanham Act and the CPA and awarded damages.
- The district court entered a permanent injunction against infringing conduct, later struck most of the jury’s damages under Rule 50(b), and alternatively ordered a new trial on damages.
- Defendants sought declaratory relief that Washington’s Personality Rights Act (WPRA) did not provide postmortem rights in Hendrix’s persona to Experience Hendrix; the district court held the WPRA unconstitutional and unenforceable as applied.
- Both sides appealed: Experience Hendrix challenged the damages reduction, the new-trial order on damages, and the injunction’s scope; defendants cross-appealed, including on the WPRA ruling and trademark determinations.

## Issues

1. Whether Washington’s Personality Rights Act validly granted enforceable postmortem publicity rights in Jimi Hendrix’s persona despite his New York domicile at death.
2. Whether defendants’ use of “Hendrix” in domain names infringed Experience Hendrix’s “Hendrix” trademark.
3. Whether the permanent injunction complied with Rule 65(d) by stating with sufficient specificity what conduct was prohibited.
4. Whether the district court properly struck most of the jury’s damages under Rule 50(b) and whether a new trial on damages was warranted under the Lanham Act and Washington CPA.
5. Whether the Washington CPA attorney’s-fee award could stand given the damages and remand posture.

## Decision

- Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part.
- Reversed the ruling that the WPRA was unconstitutional; remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for Experience Hendrix on defendants’ declaratory claims under the WPRA.
- Affirmed partial summary judgment that defendants’ use of “Hendrix” in the challenged domain names infringed Experience Hendrix’s “Hendrix” mark.
- Vacated the permanent injunction and remanded for revision to clarify what conduct is and is not enjoined.
- Reversed the Rule 50(b) decision striking most of the jury’s damages under both the Lanham Act and the Washington CPA.
- Affirmed the order granting a new trial on damages under both statutes and remanded for that trial.
- Vacated the Washington CPA attorney’s-fee award and remanded for further proceedings.
- A separate opinion concurred in part and dissented in part, disputing the need for a new trial on damages.

## Legal Principles

- A state postmortem right-of-publicity statute may be applied to in-state commercial conduct even when the celebrity was domiciled elsewhere at death, so long as the application does not regulate transactions occurring wholly outside the state.
- Use of a protected mark in a domain name can constitute trademark infringement where it creates a likelihood of confusion as to affiliation, sponsorship, or approval.
- Permanent injunctions must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) by describing prohibited acts with sufficient specificity to give clear notice and permit enforcement.
- Rule 50(b) permits judgment as a matter of law only when the evidence does not legally support the verdict; even if a damages award is not struck under Rule 50(b), a new trial on damages may be ordered where the trial court identifies a valid basis for retrial.
- Attorney’s-fee awards under Washington’s CPA may require reconsideration when the damages determination is reopened on remand.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Washington’s postmortem personality-rights statute could be enforced in this dispute, affirmed that “Hendrix” domain-name use infringed the “Hendrix” mark, required a narrower and clearer injunction, rejected the district court’s Rule 50(b) damages reduction, and nonetheless required a new trial on damages and reconsideration of CPA fees.


Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. v. Hendrixlicensing.com, Ltd., 762 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2014)