Palmer v. Schonhorn Enterprises, Inc.
New Jersey Superior Court
96 N.J. Super. 72, 232 A.2d 458 (1967)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Schonhorn Enterprises, Inc. (Schonhorn) (plaintiff) sold a golf-themed board game that included 23 cards, each bearing the name of a famous professional golfer and certain publicly available information about the golfer. The outside cover of the game box touted that the game included profiles and playing charts of 23 golfers. Arnold Palmer and three other professional golfers (golfers) (plaintiffs) who were represented on the game cards sued Schonhorn for using their names without authorization. Specifically, the golfers asserted that Schonhorn violated their privacy rights by misappropriating the golfers’ names, which reduced the golfers’ abilities to enter into licensing agreements with other potential commercial partners. The golfers sought an injunction and damages. Schonhorn admitted that its use of the golfers’ names and biographies made the game more marketable and that the golfers earned significant amounts of money by endorsing commercial ventures. But Schonhorn contended that it did not violate the golfers’ privacy rights because, among other things, Schonhorn used only publicly available information about the golfers and the game box did not identify any of the golfers by name.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Horn, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 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.

