Stauffer v. Trump

Background

Howard Richard Stauffer, proceeding without a lawyer and with permission to file without paying the filing fee, sued Donald J. Trump. Stauffer alleged that Trump, during his campaign for reelection as President, violated Stauffer’s rights by using Stauffer’s identity and four copyrighted works: “We are the Middle Class,” “Liberals Dream the Pro-Life Scheme, Conservatives Hopes for an Honest Fool,” “Four and Four the Republicans for Obama,” and “Stuck in Neutral the Obama Economy.”

Stauffer asserted copyright-infringement claims under 17 U.S.C. §§ 501 and 506; claims under the Lanham Act, the federal trademark statute, for false designation of origin, dilution, unfair competition, and false advertising; and claims under New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 for an alleged right of publicity. He sought one billion dollars, along with additional amounts for humiliation, pain and suffering, and documentary-production expenses.

The court had dismissed Stauffer’s original complaint by an August 19, 2024 order but allowed him to file an amended complaint. The court then reviewed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of a fee-waived complaint that is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. The court also considered whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction.

Copyright Claims

The court held that Stauffer did not plausibly allege copyright infringement. A copyright-infringement claim requires facts showing ownership of a valid copyright and infringement, including actual copying and substantial similarity between the accused work and protectable parts of the copyrighted work.

Stauffer listed four works but did not explain what Trump did that copied them. He also did not allege that Trump created a substantially similar work. The court further held that a person’s identity or likeness is not a copyrighted work. The copyright claims were therefore dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Trademark Claims

For a Lanham Act trademark claim, a plaintiff must allege a protectable mark and a defendant’s use of that mark in a way likely to confuse consumers about the source or sponsorship of goods or services. The court found that Stauffer did not allege facts showing that he owned a registered or otherwise protectable mark.

The court understood Stauffer’s allegations about his “mark” to concern Trump’s alleged use of Stauffer’s identity. It held that identity is not a protectable mark under the Lanham Act and dismissed the trademark-related claims.

Allegations About Stauffer’s Identity

The court found no factual basis for Stauffer’s assertion that Trump had used his identity. It explained that a plaintiff’s beliefs, even strongly held beliefs, are not facts and that a complaint must provide a factual basis for allegations made on information and belief. The court also characterized these allegations as irrational and dismissed the claims as frivolous.

New York Right-of-Publicity Claims

The court considered Stauffer’s claims under New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, which address the unauthorized use of a living person’s name, portrait, or picture for advertising or trade purposes. The court found that the amended complaint contained no factual allegations showing that Trump used Stauffer’s name, picture, portrait, or any other aspect of his identity. The right-of-publicity claims therefore failed to state a claim and were dismissed.

Disposition

The court dismissed Stauffer’s amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). Because Stauffer had already received an opportunity to amend and the amended complaint did not indicate that its defects could be cured, the court declined to grant another opportunity to amend. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waived status for an appeal. The order does not use the terms “with prejudice” or “without prejudice.”