Raymond Weil, S.A. v. Theron
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
585 F. Supp. 2d 473 (2008)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Raymond Weil, S.A. (RW) (plaintiff) was a manufacturer and seller of luxury watches. RW entered into an endorsement contract with Denver and Delilah Films (DDF) (defendant), a production company owned by Charlize Theron (defendant), a famous actress. DDF acted as a loan-out corporation for Theron for agreements where Theron would agree to render services to a third party. The endorsement contract with RW provided that DDF would be paid $3 million in exchange for the use of Theron’s image for the purpose of advertising RW’s watches. The contract prohibited Theron from wearing other watches in public during the term of the agreement and from allowing her likeness to be used for advertising other watches or jewelry. The contract permitted each party a five-day period to cure a breach after notification of the breach, unless the breach could not be cured. During the term, Theron agreed to be photographed wearing a necklace made by Montblanc, which also made watches. At a prestigious trade show, Montblanc displayed a poster of Theron wearing the necklace. RW notified DDF that this was a breach of the agreement, and Montblanc removed the poster within the five-day notice period. Subsequently, Theron wore a watch made by Christian Dior to a press conference at the South by Southwest Film Festival (SXSW). Theron was photographed wearing the watch, and those images were published on the Internet and used by another competitor. RW sued DDF and Theron for breach of contract. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McMahon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.