Mossack Fonseca & Co., S.A. v. Netflix Inc., 2020 WL 8509658, No. CV 19-9330-CBM-AS(x) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2020)
MFSA brought trademark dilution and false advertising claims
against Netflix for its portrayal in the film “The Laundromat.” (It’s about
money laundering.) No. (Libel/false light claims aren’t addressed in this decision;
see below.)
Rogers governed the false advertising claim. There
was artistic relevance because the film is about MFSA and the Panama Papers, so
the use of the mark was relevant to the film. And using a mark without the
owner’s authorization does not explicitly mislead consumers about the source or
content of the film. Gordon v. Drape Creative, Inc., 909 F.3d 257 (9th Cir.
2018), is not to the contrary, because Netflix used the mark in a different
context, as opposed to using it exactly the same way the plaintiffs do. “Plaintiffs
use their mark in the offshore shell company finance industry, whereas
Defendant used Plaintiffs’ mark in a film.” Plus, and also distinguishable from
Gordon, the mark appears in several scenes of the film, “and is
therefore only one component of Defendant’s larger expressive work.” This was
not explicitly misleading.
MFSA also argued that the trailer made false statements,
because it “portrays the Plaintiffs as criminals and/or in the false light of
criminality in the provision of their services as overseas lawyers.” But they
failed to identify any false statement in the trailer for the Film. And use of
MFSA’s logo in the trailer was also protected by Rogers.
Trademark dilution/tarnishment. Among the problems,
Netflix’s use of the MFSA logo was noncommercial because it had some artistic
relevance to the film. (Not precisely the full reason, but really I can’t blame the
court for cutting some corners on a claim this terrible.)
Mossack Fonseca & Co., S.A. v. Netflix Inc., 2020 WL
8510342, No. CV 19-9330-CBM-AS(x) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2020)
Special motion to strike the state-law claims of libel/false
light invasion of privacy. “The Laundromat” is allegedly “based on” investigative
journalist Jake Bernstein’s book entitled Secrecy World: Inside the Panama
Papers Investigation of Illicit Money Networks and the Global Elite. It “tells
the story of the documents known as the Panama Papers ... leaked in 2015,”
which “revealed how Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca illegally funneled
money for the wealthy in Panama and worldwide.”
Plaintiffs initally failed to authenticate internet stories
reviewing the film, e.g., the description: “When a widow gets swindled out of
insurance money, her search for answers leads to two cunning lawyers in Panama,
who hide cash for the super rich.”
The film was disseminated in a public forum, and it covered
a public issue/an issue of public interest. The burden shifted to MFSA to show
a probability of success on their claims.
They didn’t.
The Court finds no reasonable
viewer of the Film would interpret the Film as conveying “assertions of
objective fact,” particularly given the statement at the beginning of the Film
“BASED ON ACTUAL SECRETS” which sets the stage and the disclaimer at the end of
the Film that states the Film is fictionalized for dramatization and is not
intended to reflect any actual person or history.
Even assuming a reasonable viewer
would view the Film as statements of actual fact, the Film does not portray
Plaintiffs as directly involved in the murders, drug cartels, and other
criminal activity committed by their clients as referenced in the Complaint.
And the complaint admitted that some of the offshore
entities created by Plaintiffs “appears to have been utilized by some [end
users] for criminal activity including, but not limited to, money laundering,
tax evasion, bribery and/or fraud.” So the film’s portrayal of persons for whom
MFSA created shell companies as engaging in criminal activity was not false. Fonseca
and Mossack were also criminally charged, so depicting them as being arrested
and jailed wasn’t false. There was no reason to allow them discovery.
No comments:
Post a Comment