In May 2006, Cingular Wireless issued a press release containing information about Cingular’s preparedness for disasters, such as hurricanes, through its “MACH1” and “MACH2” mobile command centers.  Playing off the “MACH” name, the press release compares the significance of Cingular’s mobile command centers with the achievement of legendary test pilot Chuck Yeager in breaking the sound barrier and achieving Mach 1.

General Yeager sued bringing claims for, among other things, violation of California common law and statutory right of publicity.  Cingular, now AT&T, brought a motion for summary disposition on the grounds that (1) the First Amendment protects the press release because it contains newsworthy matter and is not commercial speech, and (2) the use of Yeager’s name was “fleeting and inconsequential”.

After all, AT&T argued, the press release did not include a picture of Yeager, did not mention his name in any headline or headings, did not offer for sale any specific products or services, and certainly did not state that Yeager endorses the company or any of its products or services.  The connection between the new mobile service and Yeager’s feat may be tenuous (and, okay, stupid) but Yeager’s accomplishment is, after all, an historical fact.  Is this really something Yeager should be able to control, even in a quasi-commercial context, where there isn’t a clear message of endorsement?

The district judge apparently thought so, and earlier this month denied AT&T’s motion.  Although press releases serve both commercial and news reporting functions, the judge determined that the press release, in this case, was primarily commercial in nature.  The judge held that “Yeager’s name and accomplishments were used to attract attention to [AT&T]’s unrelated wireless services,” and that his “name and accomplishments in breaking the sound barrier are wholly unrelated to [AT&T]’s mobile command centers and cellular service in emergency situations.”  The court further noted that the use of Yeager’s name and accomplishment may have been a small part of the press release but was, nevertheless, used to uniquely enhance the marketability of AT&T’s service.

The scope of protection for a celebrity’s name, likeness, and, in this case, accomplishments continues to expand.  In an abundance of caution, those in the PR industry should avoid even fleeting references to celebrities in press releases, or get permission for the use.

–Matt