About two years ago, McDonald’s advertised a sale on family-sized containers of ice cream called “Blast Ice Cream” in Israel. The advertisement’s headline was “Maayan will be happy to hear… Blast Party: Blast Ice Cream in a family-sized carton.” The advertisement referred to Channel 12 News reporter Maayan Parti, making a pun out of her surname. In response, Parti sued the chain, claiming it was making commercial use of her name and exploiting the fact she is a journalist covering cost-of-living issues, without obtaining her consent to use her name or to reap profits as a result thereof.

Invasion of Privacy

Parti sued the hamburger chain for several causes of claim. The court determined that the chain infringed Parti’s right to privacy in its advertisement, since it appropriated Parti’s name without the reporter’s prior permission. The court found that using a person’s name without his or her consent, in order to reap profit from it, and especially spreading the advertisement on various social media (as the chain did), constitutes privacy infringement. This entitles the injured party to compensation. The court referred to the chain’s use as “making a wisecrack out of [Parti’s] name,” and ruled in favor of the reporter. Ultimately, the court ordered McDonald’s to pay ILS 40,000 to Parti, plus litigation expenses.

The court based its ruling on a lawsuit from 20 years ago that also involved the McDonald’s chain. In that instance, as well, the chain used the name of a private individual – former basketball player Ariel McDonald – in an advertising campaign, without his consent. The basketball player sued the chain, inter alia, alleging that the commercial use of his name infringed his right to privacy. The Supreme Court ruled that privacy infringement occurs when a person’s name is used without consent for profit. Additionally, the court stated that a person is entitled to compensation if such usage causes emotional harm. (In the same matter, the court found no privacy infringement when McDonald himself made commercial use of his name.)

Commercial Use of a Name

The rulings show courts are sensitive to economic entities using a celebrity’s name commercially without explicit or implied consent. In this context, consent is a crucial factual question in determining the outcome of court claims.

[View source.]