plaintiffs name and accomplishments. Indeed, as set forth above, the evidence reveals that the Publication was crafted in order to make that very association and to “create positive associations in people’s mind with the AT & T brand.” (Siegel Dep. at 16, 18.) While the use of plaintiffs name and reference to his accomplishment was a small part of the 755-word Publication, the association of defendant’s services with a historical feat is a use that may help to pique the interest of a newsman deciding whether to follow up on a press release. (See Deposition of Albert Levy at 111:4-19.) Therefore, like in Pooley, the use of plaintiffs name and identity uniquely enhanced the marketability of defendant’s service. See also Henley v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, 46 F.Supp.2d 587, 592 (N.D.Tex.1999) (<HOLDING>); Accordingly, defendant is not entitled to
holding that incidental use defense did not apply where the defendant used the value associated with a wellknown musicians name in a wordplay in order to attract consumers attention holding determination of property value in case to decide if assessed value was excessive is not a liquidated demand where only evidence of property value was the conclusory allegation of value in plaintiffs unsworn petition holding that the government did not waive an affirmative defense not pleaded in the answer because it raised the defense at a pragmatically sufficient time by listing the defense in the joint pretrial order holding that information from reliable entity confirming that defendant was the internet subscriber associated with the ip addresses at issue and used screen name involved in crime supported probable cause for warrant holding that res judicata did not apply where a trial courts order was not a final judgment