Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SATURDAY, April 22, 1995                   TAG: 9504240050
SECTION: VIRGINIA                    PAGE: C-3   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: RICHMOND                                 LENGTH: Medium

COURT BACKS EX-ATHLETE FIGHTING AD'S USE OF NAME

The court upheld the decision of a Fairfax County Circuit Court jury but reduced the damages awarded to Riggins from $53,608 to $50,000.

In other rulings, the court:

Upheld a $140,000 judgment for a Richmond Newspapers Inc. pressman who said his buttocks and genitals were grabbed by a supervisor.

Affirmed a $300,000 slander verdict against a Richmond police officer who told a man's employer that the worker might have been involved in illegal activity.

Ordered a new sentencing hearing for death row inmate Walter Mickens Jr.

In the Riggins case, Town & Country Properties Inc. contended that its use of the former Washington Redskins star's name on a handbill promoting an open house for real estate brokers was protected ``commercial speech'' under the First Amendment.

The handbill was the idea of Riggins' ex-wife, Mary Lou Riggins, who worked in Town & Country's office in Vienna. The flier urged brokers to ``come see John Riggins' former home.'' His name was in the largest type on the page.

Riggins, who was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1992, said he did not give permission for the use of his name. He said his celebrity status allowed him to charge $5,000 to $90,000 for endorsements and personal appearances.

At the trial, Riggins testified that his livelihood had been threatened by the flier.

``If this is allowed, if this is OK, then basically the living or the life I am trying to live and the money I'm trying to earn is not going to be possible because my name belongs to everybody, it does not belong to me,'' Riggins said.

The jury - and the Supreme Court - agreed. The court cited a state law that says the unauthorized use of a person's name in an ad is grounds for a lawsuit.

The court rejected the company's argument that Riggins' former ownership was just another fact about the house, saying use of his name ``was not relevant to dissemination of information to consumers about the physical condition, architectural features, or quality of the home.''

The court reduced the amount of the jury's award, however, because it exceeded the amount Riggins sought in the lawsuit.