Whether a defendant who willfully creates a false narrative about a public figure that is marketed to the public as a true story, for the intentional purpose of misappropriating the public figure's famous mark and goodwill to market and promote a reality television program, is entitled to the benefits of the First Amendment-based defense of Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989) and other First Amendment-based defenses to the public figure plaintiffs Lanham Act claims, where the defendant's speech about the plaintiff was defamatory speech made with actual malice?

QUESTION PRESENTED Defamatory speech — or in the case of public figures, defamatory speech made with actual malice — has long been established as speech that is outside the protections of the First Amendment, under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) and its progeny. The question presented here is: Whether a defendant who willfully creates a false narrative about a public figure that is marketed to the public as a true story, for the intentional purpose of misappropriating the public figure’s famous mark and goodwill to market and promote a reality television program, is entitled to the benefits of the First Amendment-based defense of Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989) and other First Amendment-based defenses to the public figure plaintiffs Lanham Act claims, where the defendant’s speech about the plaintiff was defamatory speech made with actual malice?