In 1998, the Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Fund charity tried to assert California “right of publicity” law against the Franklin Mint to force them to stop selling tchotchkes and gewgaws with Diana’s image, and spent over one million pounds on attorneys to fight the case. California courts were not impressed, noting that Diana was a resident of a country that did not have such laws, but the litigation continued for years before appeals were resolved.

The Franklin Mint then turned around and sued the charity for malicious prosecution of the first lawsuit; the Diana Fund defends itself by arguing that, while its lawsuit was meritless in hindsight, it was not frivolous under the law. The legal distinction, aside from showing the general difficulties in the U.S. system that a defendant winner has in recovering its expenses from a meritless lawsuit, has resulted in another couple of years of litigation, and trial is now scheduled for November.

But here’s the kicker: Franklin Mint Co., perhaps because of the bad pr involved in attempting to recover from a charity that has loudly complained about the effect of the litigation on its work, has supposedly “said it will give any damages it receives from the case to charities supported by the fund.” So if the Diana Fund wins the lawsuit, its charities get to keep getting money; if Franklin Mint wins, it will give the money to the Diana Fund’s charities. So, if the report about the Franklin Mint’s claims is true, who benefits from this lawsuit other than the lawyers? (Reuters, “Franklin Mint Wins Right to Sue Lady Di Memorial Fund”, Oct. 2; CBS/AP, “Diana Fund Feud Foils Grant-Giving”, Jul. 11, 2003; Franklin Mint press release, Jun. 20, 2002; BBC, “Diana fund loses doll battle”, Jan. 6, 2000).

Filed under: United Kingdom