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 plaintiff's Lanham Act claims, where the defendant's speech about the plaintiff was defamatory speech made with actual malice?

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?