Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Celebrity Name or Likeness
False-Sponsorship Claim. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin ruled against actor Andy Griffith in his federal Lanham Act suit against an individual who changed his name to 'Andy Griffith' and ran for county sheriff. Griffith v. Fenrick, 06-C-635-S. The defendant had used 'Andy Griffith for Sheriff' on campaign goods and cited the town of Mayberry, NC, from the popular 'Andy Griffith' 1960s TV show in his political campaign. Actor Griffith lent his name to North Carolina political campaigns.
The district court noted: 'It is likely that defendant's use of the name Andy Griffith in his campaign would cause potential voters to connect it to the famous actor and to his famous sheriff character. However, there is no basis or evidence to suggest the leap to confusion as to sponsorship by plaintiff ' Defendant's speech was not commercial. The use of the Andy Griffith name was not to propose a commercial transaction but to seek elective office, fundamental First Amendment protected speech.'
The court also found that the amount in controversy did not reach the $75,000 required for federal jurisdiction over plaintiff Griffith's related state-law claims. The actor had earned $100,000 in merchandising and licensing fees in the prior 18 years, which averaged only $5600 per year. In addition, the court explained: '[T]here is neither a factual nor logical basis to suppose that the demand for Mayberry memorabilia will be dampened by plaintiff's run for sheriff.' The court further noted: '[W]hether a name can be legally changed for political advantage and whether a person is entitled to pursue election under a legally changed name, notwithstanding the prohibitions of [Wis. Stat. Sec.] 995.50, are issues best resolved by the Wisconsin courts.'
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?