12. General Motors Corp. aired a commercial in which a voice was heard asking who held the record for being selected most frequently as most valuable player of the National Athletic Associations basketball tournament. On the screen appeared the words Lew Alcindor, former basketball star Kareem AbdulJabbars name before his conversion to Islam. The ad went on to list the most valuable features of the Olds 88 as a Definite First Round Pick. The current name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar did not appear in the ad. The trial court granted summary judgment to General Motors on Abdul-Jabbars right-of-publicity claim. Was the trial courts decision correct? Why, or why not?

14. The Virginia legislature passed two regulations that prohibited the use of certain words in advertisements for alcoholic beverages generally and advertisements within college student publications specifically. The first regulation, which applied to all advertisements, prohibited references to mixed beverages, except for the terms Mixed Drinks, Mixed Beverages, Exotic Drinks, Polynesian Drinks, Cocktails, Cocktail Lounges, Liquor, and Spirits. References to Happy Hour or similar terms were also prohibited. The second regulation, which applied only to college student publications, limited advertising of beer, wine, and mixed beverages by restaurants in such publications to the use of the following words: A.B.C. on-premises, beer, wine, mixed beverages, cocktails, or any combination of these words. Reference to particular brands or prices was Forbidden. Educational Media at Virginia Tech, Inc., owns several print and broadcast media outlets, including a student-run newspaper at Virginia Tech. Almost 99 percent of its annual budget came from advertising revenue. It estimated that these regulations would cost it $30,000 in lost advertising revenue each year. Educational Media challenged the two regulations on First Amendment grounds. Should these regulations be held valid or invalid under the Central Hudson test?

15. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp. brought suit, alleging that representations by Richardson-Vicks, Inc. (Vicks) regarding its product, Vicks Pediatric Formula 44, constituted false and deceptive advertising under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. Specifically, Sandoz challenged: (1) Vicks assertion that Pediatric 44 starts to work the instant it is swallowed, and (2) Vicks advertising claims that Pediatric 44 is superior to its competitors. Sandoz requested that the court issue a preliminary injunction against Vicks advertising claims. What legal rules should the court consider in evaluating this request?