## Facts

- William “Sonny” Landham acted as “Billy,” a tracker character in the film *Predator* (1987), produced by Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation.
- Landham’s initial deal memo covered limited terms (including pay and a bodyguard obligation); a later, more complete employment agreement (containing merchandising-rights language) was sent but never signed, and its timing was disputed.
- In 1995, Fox licensed Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. to produce and sell *Predator*-themed “Micro Machines” toy sets, including a small “Billy” figure.
- The “Billy” figure was approximately 1.5 inches tall, lacked facial features, and was intentionally designed not to resemble Landham.
- Landham sued Fox and Galoob, alleging (1) misappropriation of his identity under Kentucky law (right of publicity) and (2) false endorsement/false designation of origin under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, based on the sale and marketing of the “Billy” toy.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Fox and Galoob on all claims; Landham appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Landham showed a protectable, commercially valuable public identity and an actionable appropriation of that identity under Kentucky law by the sale of the “Billy” toy.
2. Whether Landham produced evidence of a likelihood of consumer confusion that he endorsed or was affiliated with the “Billy” toy, as required for a Lanham Act § 43(a) false endorsement claim.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Fox and Galoob.
- On the Kentucky right-of-publicity theory, the court held Landham failed to show (a) a commercially valuable public identity and (b) that the toy evoked his personal identity rather than merely depicting a film character.
- On the Lanham Act claim, the court held Landham failed to show a likelihood of consumer confusion regarding his endorsement or sponsorship of the toy.
- The court did not rest its result on disputed contractual merchandising-rights language in an unsigned employment agreement, instead concluding the claims failed even assuming no valid assignment.

## Legal Principles

- A publicity-based appropriation claim requires proof that the plaintiff has a personal identity with commercial value and that the challenged use actually invokes that identity (not merely a fictional character unconnected to the plaintiff in the public mind).
- A depiction that lacks recognizable personal likeness, and is presented as part of licensed film merchandise, may be insufficient to show appropriation of an actor’s persona absent evidence that consumers identify the depiction with the actor.
- A Lanham Act § 43(a) false endorsement claim requires evidence of likely consumer confusion as to sponsorship, approval, or affiliation.
- On summary judgment, a plaintiff must produce competent evidence (e.g., consumer perception evidence) supporting identity-evocation and likely confusion; speculation is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that an actor challenging licensed character merchandise must present evidence that the merchandise evokes the actor’s commercially valuable personal identity and that consumers are likely to be confused into believing the actor endorsed the product; because Landham produced no such evidence, summary judgment for Fox and Galoob was affirmed.


Landham v. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc., 227 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2000)