Hirsch v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
280 N.W.2d 129 (1979)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Elroy Hirsch (plaintiff) was a famous former college and professional football player. Hirsch, who starred at the University of Wisconsin (UW) and in the National Football League and later became the athletic director at UW, was known by the nickname Crazylegs. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. (Johnson) (defendant) marketed a shaving gel for women (product), which Johnson called Crazylegs. Johnson knew that Crazylegs was Hirsch’s nickname but did not seek Hirsch’s consent to use the name. Johnson’s first marketing event for the product was a women’s race, and Johnson ran a television advertisement that featured a cheer similar to the Crazylegs cheer that UW used when Hirsch became its athletic director. People told Hirsch that they believed that Hirsch sponsored the product, and some people even tried to order the product from Hirsch. Hirsch sued Johnson, alleging that Johnson (1) violated Hirsch’s privacy rights by misappropriating his name and (2) infringed on Hirsch’s trade name. Johnson responded that (1) Wisconsin courts rejected any common-law privacy right and (2) Hirsch did not have a viable trade-name claim because Hirsch never previously used his name to identify goods or services. Johnson moved to dismiss Hirsch’s claims at the close of Hirsch’s case, which the trial court granted. Hirsch appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Heffernan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
