## Facts

- Mike Love, a founding member of The Beach Boys, toured in the United States using “The Beach Boys” mark and claimed exclusive rights to use it for live performances.
- Brian Wilson released a solo album (*Smile*) and toured to support it.
- A British newspaper ran a promotion distributing a “Good Vibrations” compact disc with millions of newspapers in the United Kingdom and Ireland.
- The CD included Wilson performances of Beach Boys songs and other material, plus videos; the cover and related advertising used Beach Boys-related imagery, including a smaller photo that included Love.
- The campaign was conceived and executed in Europe; CDs were manufactured in Germany and distributed in the United Kingdom and Ireland.
- A small number of newspapers from that edition reached the United States without the CD (including a small number in California).
- Love alleged the promotion and use of imagery/name harmed his U.S. touring business and sued under the Lanham Act (false endorsement and related theories) and California common law right of publicity, among other claims.
- The district court dismissed claims on multiple grounds, including lack of personal jurisdiction over certain foreign defendants and forum non conveniens, and rejected extraterritorial application of the asserted U.S. and California causes of action.

## Issues

1. Whether the Lanham Act applies extraterritorially to a foreign promotional campaign primarily distributed abroad with only minimal spillover into the United States.
2. Whether California common law right of publicity applies to predominantly foreign conduct involving use of a performer’s image in foreign media and distribution abroad.
3. Whether dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants and dismissal/transfer based on forum non conveniens were proper given the case’s foreign locus.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgments.
- The court held the Lanham Act claims were not viable on these facts because the challenged conduct was predominantly foreign and lacked a sufficiently substantial effect on U.S. commerce to justify extraterritorial application.
- The court held California’s common law right of publicity did not apply to the U.K.-centered promotion.
- The court upheld the district court’s rulings dismissing certain foreign defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction and applying forum non conveniens where appropriate.

## Legal Principles

- The Lanham Act’s extraterritorial reach is limited and is assessed under a multifactor analysis considering U.S. commercial effects, the locus of conduct, party nationality, and comity concerns.
- Minimal domestic spillover from a foreign advertising or distribution campaign, without a substantial effect on U.S. commerce, is insufficient to extend Lanham Act liability to foreign-centered conduct.
- State-law publicity claims are generally territorial; California common law right of publicity will not be applied to predominantly foreign conduct where foreign jurisdictions have the primary regulatory interest.
- Comity weighs against applying U.S. trademark or state publicity law to activity centered abroad when doing so risks conflict with foreign legal regimes.
- Personal jurisdiction requires sufficient forum contacts by defendants; forum non conveniens may warrant dismissal when an adequate alternative forum exists and the dispute’s evidence and operative events are primarily foreign.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit refused to extend federal trademark law or California publicity law to a U.K.-centered newspaper and CD promotion with limited U.S. contacts and effects, and it affirmed jurisdictional and forum-based dismissals tied to the dispute’s overwhelmingly foreign character.


Love v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd., 611 F.3d 601 (9th Cir. 2010)