This case with Jose Andres is at the nexus between “Trump” the brand and “Trump” the candidate. Trump as a brand is still a lingering asset, as shown by the number of times it appears on high-end buildings. Often, Trump’s name appears under a licensing agreement, with Trump himself owning little or nothing of the building. As in any licensing agreement, the representative of the Brand Name (in this case Trump) agrees to not damage the value of the Brand.
The Andres case alleges that Trump did indeed damage the value of the Brand through racist and ethnic slurs, and that Andres would thus be unfairly damaged by association. Now, having Ivanka admit that even she, Trump’s own daughter, saw Trump’s comments as a problem… well, that seems to help Andres’ case strongly.
Further, it calls into question the value of ALL of those huge Trump names slathered on buildings. Would one want the names of “David Duke” or “George Wallace” or some other hate-monger on a high end apartment building in NYC? Would a corporation want to be hounded by its shareholders about a Trump name on its office building? This is the same man who rants against every ethnicity he can think of, and who advocates the assassination of the President.
And if Trump’s cushy licensing world begins to collapse; if there are no more “Trump Buildings” or casinos or hotels…well what does he actually have? I guess just a lot of debt owed to some sleazy Russian oligarchs. Good luck with the refinancing fast-talk in that case.