Chinese toymaker, Icons wants to make this doll or as I call it “The Steve Jobs Barbie”:

"And one more thing...."

Recently an NBC station reported that:

Apparently the doll may have problems in several states: Indiana, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Florida, California, Ohio, Virginia, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, Nebraska, Kentucky, Tennessee and Oklahoma, all of which have posthumous laws on the books. That’s not great news for In Icons.

Here’s the relevant Connecticut law that I was able to find on this matter (in a 10 minute search on Westlaw). I was expecting to find a statute but I didn’t see one. If you know of a specific statute please send it to me and I’ll be happy to change this post.

The Connecticut Supreme Court has never provided the courts with the elements required to state a claim sounding in appropriation of name or likeness, it has acknowledged the tort’s existence under the law of Connecticut. Goodrich v. Waterbury Republican-American, Inc., 188 Conn. at 127, 448 A.2d 1317; Venturi v. Savitt, Inc., 191 Conn. 588, 592, 468 A.2d 933 (1983).  The Court in Goodrich adopted the Restatement Second of Torts.

Restatement (Second), Torts § 652C, Appropriation of Name or Likeness: “One who appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy.” Comment (b) to that section provides: “The common form of invasion of privacy under the rule here stated is the appropriation and use of the plaintiff’s name or likeness to advertise the defendant’s business or product, or for some similar commercial purpose. Apart from statute, however, the rule stated is not limited to commercial appropriation. It applies also when the defendant makes use of the plaintiff’s name or likeness for his own purposes and benefit, even though the use is not a commercial one, and even though the benefit sought to be obtained is not a pecuniary one.” 3 Restatement (Second), Torts § 652C, comment (b).

Comment (a) provides that “[t]he interest protected by the rule stated in this Section is the interest of the individual in the exclusive use of his own identity, in so far as it is represented by his name or likeness, and in so far as the use may be of benefit to him or to others.” 3 Restatement (Second), Torts § 652C, comment (a).

The comment (d) provides in relevant part: “The value of the plaintiff’s name is not appropriated by mere mention of it, or by reference to it in connection with legitimate mention of his public activities; nor is the value of his likeness appropriated when it is published for purposes other than taking advantage of his reputation, prestige, or other value associated with him, for purposes of publicity … It is only when the publicity is given for the purpose of appropriating to the defendant’s benefit the commercial or other values associated with the name or the likeness that the right of privacy is invaded.”  3 Restatement (Second), Torts § 652C, comment (d).

Icons is clearly attempting to use Jobs’ likeness for a commercial purpose. It’ll be interesting to see if the “Steve Jobs Barbie” makes its way to Connecticut stores. If it does, I’m betting on either Jobs’ estate or Apple filing a law suit against Icon in Connecticut.

Hat tip to CT Capitol Report’s Tom Dudchick.

Lawyer: When had it last snowed prior to your fall?

Prospective client: Oh, it was still snowing / just finished snowing / I walked on snow that I  could see at the time of the fall.

The winter of 2011 is a special defense.

Senator Fasano has been working on this legislation for some time. Over the summer Senator Fasano formed a task force to investigate how to create a public cord blood bank. Researchers from Yale and UConn were on the task force.

Presently, it’s not viable to operate a public bank in Connecticut. Cord blood from Connecticut would be stored out of state. Cells that were unable to be used would be provided to researchers in Connecticut. The bank would begin making money for the State within 5 years.

The benefits are significant considering most cord blood is presently discarded.

Senator Fasano will be holding a press conference on cord blood banking on March 1, 2011 in advance of a public hearing on the matter on March 2, 2011. Senator Fasano is optimistic that the legislation will pass because it enjoys bipartisan support.

I urge you to ask your legislator to support establishing a public cord blood bank. It just may save the life of someone you know.

With plenty of time to both shovel and commute I often find myself daydreaming about practicing law in a warmer jurisdiction.

No snow here.

Then I wonder whether studying for the bar exam is worse than shoveling. This is a close one.

I swore when I took the Connecticut bar exam that I’d only ever take it or any other exam once. It’s a horrible experience.

This all got me to thinking about what state’s can I be admitted to practice without having to take another bar exam?

Hawaii? No.

California? No.

Florida? No.

Arizona? No.

Nevada? No.

I see a pattern here. Warm states don’t want lawyers from cold weather states deciding they’ve had enough of winter and relocating.

It’s easy to waive into plenty of cold weather states. For instance, Sarah Palin’s Alaska would welcome me with open arms.

The warmest place I could find that would let me in without taking the bar exam again is North Carolina.  Hmmm….maybe I should register anorthcarolinalawbog.com …..

A declaratory judgment is an extraordinary remedy in Connecticut. Ordinarily Connecticut courts deal with events that have already happened. From crimes to car accidents….courts resolve conflicts for events that have already occurred or are ongoing. Courts usually hear cases where an actual loss has occurred.

On the other hand, a declaratory judgment is brought by a plaintiff who is unsure of his rights.

Under Connecticut law a party can bring an action for declaratory judgment when:

(1) The party seeking the declaratory judgment has an interest, legal or equitable, by reason of danger of loss or of uncertainty as to the party’s rights or other jural relations;

(2) There is an actual bona fide and substantial question or issue in dispute or substantial uncertainty of legal relations which requires settlement between the parties; and

(3) In the event that there is another form of proceeding that can provide the party seeking the declaratory judgment immediate redress, the court is of the opinion that such party should be allowed to proceed with the claim for declaratory judgment despite the existence of such alternate procedure. Connecticut Practice Book Section 17-55.

Bysiewicz v. DiNardo is a prime example of a controversy that is ripe for a declaratory action as uncertainty abounds. When the case is resolved for better or worse, Ms. Bysiewicz, the CT Democratic Party, and the Secretary of State’s Office will have answers in place of uncertainty and that’s good for all involved.

Kevin Rennie is reporting that Susan Bysiewicz is going to seek a declaratory judgment on the issue as to whether or not she is qualified to be attorney general.

If she  opts to challenge the constitutionality of the Attorney General statute she’ll find herself squaring off against Attorney General Blumenthal.

Connecticut Practice Book Section 17-56b requires the Attorney General to be given reasonable notice or be  a party to any declaratory judgment challenging the validity of a state statute.

If the statute is challenged it’s the Attorney General’s job to defend it.

Break out the popcorn.  Bysiewicz v. Blumenthal may be coming to a superior court near you.

I hope that you had a Happy New Year. I had a festive weekend. In between celebrating the new year and a family member’s new job – I attended a wedding on Saturday. The wedding was very nice.

The bride and groom couldn’t have bought better weather for a winter wedding. Their pictures will look like they got married in a snow globe.

While I was watching the beautiful bride and happy groom exchange vows, I started thinking of the legal requirements of the ceremony. Romantic, I know. Anyone thinking of taking the LSAT should reread the two previous sentences.

What are the requirements for a valid marriage ceremony in Connecticut?

1. The physical presence of the parties before an official licensed to perform a marriage ceremony in Connecticut; and

2. A third party official must witness or officiate at a ceremony wherein the parties each presently consent to marriage. Hames v. Hames, 163 Conn. 588 (1972).

That’s all that is required by law. No need to kiss the bride.

Healthcare. The debate is everywhere right now.

It occurred to me that the last time I was in Small Claims Court that most of the cases on the docket involved defendants who were being sued for unpaid medical bills.

I did a quick search of active small claims cases filed by ECHN (Manchester Memorial Hospital) and Hartford Hospital in Connecticut small claims court.

As of this morning a search for ECHN turned up 1,000 active small claims cases (which is the maximum allowed by a search meaning there are likely more than 1,000 active cases).

A search of active cases for Hartford Hospital returned 514 active cases.

I did not check every case to see if it was a collection matter but if I had to guess the vast majority of the cases were for unpaid medical bills.

I also did not check the regular civil docket which would include cases where the alleged damages (unpaid medical bills) are in excess of $5,000.00.

I’m not sure of the solution but clearly there is a problem.