Michael Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores, Incorporat Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A court held that a grocery store’s congratulatory ad to Michael Jordan was commercial speech, not protected noncommercial speech. The ad’s use of the store’s logo and slogan to promote its brand constituted a commercial use of Jordan’s identity, allowing his right of publicity lawsuit to proceed.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that “image advertising” which promotes brand goodwill, even without proposing a specific transaction, constitutes commercial speech. This limits the First Amendment defense against right of publicity and trademark claims for the unauthorized use of a celebrity’s identity.
Michael Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores, Incorporat Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
To celebrate Michael Jordan’s induction into the Basketball Hall of Fame, Sports Illustrated published a commemorative issue. Jewel Food Stores, a supermarket chain, received free advertising space in the issue in exchange for an agreement to stock and sell it. Jewel submitted a full-page ad that congratulated Jordan. The ad prominently featured the Jewel-Osco logo and its marketing slogan, “Good things are just around the corner.” The ad’s text read, in part: “Jewel-Osco salutes #23 on his many accomplishments as we honor a fellow Chicagoan who was ‘just around the corner’ for so many years.” Jordan, who did not authorize the ad, sued Jewel for $5 million, alleging violations of the federal Lanham Act and the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, among other claims. Jewel moved for summary judgment, arguing the ad was noncommercial speech fully protected by the First Amendment. The district court agreed with Jewel. Jordan appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a company’s advertisement that congratulates a celebrity while also prominently featuring its own branding and slogan constitute commercial speech subject to regulation under the Lanham Act and state right of publicity laws?
Yes. The court held that Jewel’s advertisement was commercial speech. The ad’s Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor i
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a company’s advertisement that congratulates a celebrity while also prominently featuring its own branding and slogan constitute commercial speech subject to regulation under the Lanham Act and state right of publicity laws?
Conclusion
The decision establishes that brand-burnishing or "image" advertising falls within the commercial Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volupt
Legal Rule
Speech is classified as commercial if it is an advertisement, refers to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sin
Legal Analysis
The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court, rejecting a rigid definition of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An advertisement that congratulates a celebrity but also prominently features the