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

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
May 30, 2007

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.'

Post-Mortem Rights. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that a residuary clause in the will of actress Marilyn Monroe, who died in 1962, did not transfer a post-mortem right-of-publicity. Shaw Family Archives Ltd.(SFA) v. CMG Worldwide Inc., 05 Civ. 3939. The residuary clause in Monroe's will referred to: 'All the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, both real and personal of whatsoever nature and whatsoever situate, of which I shall die seized or possessed or to which I shall be in any way entitled, or over which I shall possess any power of appointment by Will at the time of my death.' Monroe left her estate to acting coach Lee Strasberg, who left his estate to his wife Anna when he died in 1982. Marilyn Monroe LLC (MMLLC) and the licensing agency CMG Worldwide sued the heirs of Monroe photographer Sam Shaw in Indiana federal district court over the retail sale in the state of a T-shirt with a Monroe photo and over a Web site. The case was transferred to New York federal court and consolidated with a declaratory suit filed by Shaw Family Archives in the latter district.

The New York federal district court noted that SFA argued: '[O]nly property actually owned by a testator at the time of her death can be devised by will. Since neither New York nor California (the only possible domiciles of Ms. Monroe at the time of her death) ' nor for that matter, Indiana ' recognized descendible postmortem publicity rights at the time of Ms. Monroe's death in 1962 [New York still doesn't recognize a descendible publicity right], she could not transfer any such rights through her will, and MMLLC cannot be a successor-in-interest to them. Moreover, the SFA parties contend, neither the California nor the Indiana right of publicity statutes allow for the transfer of the publicity rights they recognize through the wills of personalities who were already deceased at the time of their enactment. The court agrees.'

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.'

Post-Mortem Rights. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that a residuary clause in the will of actress Marilyn Monroe, who died in 1962, did not transfer a post-mortem right-of-publicity. Shaw Family Archives Ltd.(SFA) v. CMG Worldwide Inc., 05 Civ. 3939. The residuary clause in Monroe's will referred to: 'All the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, both real and personal of whatsoever nature and whatsoever situate, of which I shall die seized or possessed or to which I shall be in any way entitled, or over which I shall possess any power of appointment by Will at the time of my death.' Monroe left her estate to acting coach Lee Strasberg, who left his estate to his wife Anna when he died in 1982. Marilyn Monroe LLC (MMLLC) and the licensing agency CMG Worldwide sued the heirs of Monroe photographer Sam Shaw in Indiana federal district court over the retail sale in the state of a T-shirt with a Monroe photo and over a Web site. The case was transferred to New York federal court and consolidated with a declaratory suit filed by Shaw Family Archives in the latter district.

The New York federal district court noted that SFA argued: '[O]nly property actually owned by a testator at the time of her death can be devised by will. Since neither New York nor California (the only possible domiciles of Ms. Monroe at the time of her death) ' nor for that matter, Indiana ' recognized descendible postmortem publicity rights at the time of Ms. Monroe's death in 1962 [New York still doesn't recognize a descendible publicity right], she could not transfer any such rights through her will, and MMLLC cannot be a successor-in-interest to them. Moreover, the SFA parties contend, neither the California nor the Indiana right of publicity statutes allow for the transfer of the publicity rights they recognize through the wills of personalities who were already deceased at the time of their enactment. The court agrees.'

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
How Secure Is the AI System Your Law Firm Is Using? Image

What Law Firms Need to Know Before Trusting AI Systems with Confidential Information In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.

COVID-19 and Lease Negotiations: Early Termination Provisions Image

During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.

Pleading Importation: ITC Decisions Highlight Need for Adequate Evidentiary Support Image

The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.

Authentic Communications Today Increase Success for Value-Driven Clients Image

As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.

The Power of Your Inner Circle: Turning Friends and Social Contacts Into Business Allies Image

Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.