The estate of Bob Marley earned a big win in court recently as a judge decided that there is too much confusion involved when consumers purchase clothing with the reggae great's likeness. As The Hollywood Reporter notes, the decision could be good news for other musicians and celebrities whose picture is used on merchandise without their consent. Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, a clothing company that is partnered with Marley's estate, argued that consumers would confuse unofficially licensed merchandise as being endorsed by the Marley family.

The issue dates back to 2008 when Fifty-Six Hope Road Music and the Marleys sued A.V.E.L.A., another company that was selling shirts with the deceased singer's likeness to Walmart and Target. The company was ordered to pay millions of dollars in damages to the Marley clan in 2011. After four years of appeals, the courts have upheld the decision.

"This case presents a question that is familiar in our circuit," Judge N. Randy Smith wrote. "When does the use of a celebrity's likeness or persona in connection with a product constitute false endorsement that is actionable under the Lanham Act."

The Lanham Act is a law that protects against false advertising and trademark infringement. It's big news for other celebs who don't endorse products with their likeness. Attorneys for the Marleys proved their point in court by unveiling the results of a survey that was conducted. Consumers were asked who they thought gave permission to sell an unofficial Marley shirt made by A.V.E.L.A. and another shirt with an unknown African American man with dreadlocks. Thirty seven percent of the people surveyed said they thought the A.V.E.L.A. shirt was released with permission from the Marley family, proving the point of confusion.

"Drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs' favor, the survey shows actual confusion," Smith added. "Evidence of actual confusion is relevant to likelihood of confusion but not required in a false endorsement case."