Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant- grocery store’s motion for summary judgment in Lanham Act and related state court actions, alleging that defendant violated plaintiff’s right to privacy by publishing advertisement in sports magazine that congratulated plaintiff on his induction into Basketball Hall of Fame, where Dist. Ct. agreed with defendant that defendant was entitled to blanket immunity from plaintiff’s lawsuit since said advertisement was protected non-commercial speech under First Amendment. Ct. of Appeals found that instant advertisement, which featured plaintiff’s logo and market slogan within advertisement’s message, was actually form of image advertising that was aimed at plaintiff’s brand. As such, defendant was not entitled to blanket immunity, and Ct. remanded matter back to Dist. Ct. for resolution of plaintiff’s claims on their merits. Fact that advertisement did not propose commercial transaction did not require different result.