Overview: In this case, also known as "The Velvet Elvis Case," assignee and registrant of all trademarks, copyrights, and publicity rights belonging to the Elvis Presley estate sues operators of "The Velvet Elvis" restaurant for trademark infringement and dilution, and violation of its right of publicity in the name of Elvis Presley. In this opinion, the appellate court reverses and remands the ruling of the District Court.
October 26, 2013
October 25, 2013
Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Passport Video (2004)(Amended Dissent)
Overview: Various copyright holders sue video company over unauthorized use of copyrighted material in exhaustive 16-hour video documentary of Elvis' life.
October 24, 2013
Cocaine-Cola, the Velvet Elvis, and Anti-Barbie: Defending the Trademark and Publicity Rights to Cultural Icons
This lengthy article includes a section on Elvis and discusses the Russen and Capece cases.
Cocaine-Cola, the Velvet Elvis, and Anti-Barbie: Defending the Trademark and Publicity Rights to Cultural Icons, Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal Winter, 1998 (Harvard.edu)
Cocaine-Cola, the Velvet Elvis, and Anti-Barbie: Defending the Trademark and Publicity Rights to Cultural Icons, Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal Winter, 1998 (Harvard.edu)
October 23, 2013
Policing Elvis: Legal Action and the Shaping of Post-Mortem Celebrity Culture as Contested Space
This is a fairly detailed and scholary article outlining many of the post-mortem Elvis-related
legal cases and how they have "shaped celebrity culture as contested
space."
Download: Policing Elvis: Legal Action and the Shaping of Post-Mortem Celebrity Culture as Contested Space (PDF) David S. Wall, Entertainment Law, Vol.2, No.3, Autumn 2003, pp.35 – 69.
Download: Policing Elvis: Legal Action and the Shaping of Post-Mortem Celebrity Culture as Contested Space (PDF) David S. Wall, Entertainment Law, Vol.2, No.3, Autumn 2003, pp.35 – 69.
October 22, 2013
Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Capece (1996)
Overview: In this District Court case, also known as "The Velvet Elvis Case," assignee and registrant of all trademarks, copyrights, and publicity rights belonging to the Elvis Presley estate sues operators of "The Velvet Elvis" restaurant for trademark infringement and dilution, and violation of its right of publicity in the name of Elvis Presley. Here, the District Court finds for Capece, which was later reversed and remanded on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit(May 7, 1998).
Note: There is some wonderful Judicial Humor at the end of this opinion!
Note: There is some wonderful Judicial Humor at the end of this opinion!
October 21, 2013
United States v. Dowling (1984)
Overview: In this criminal case (Bootleg Records Case) that reached
the United States Supreme Court, the Defendant, Dowling, was convicted in
the U.S. District Court for mail fraud, interstate transportation of stolen
property, and conspiracy to transport stolen property interstate as a result of
the sale and distribution of large quantities of bootleg recordings of Elvis
Presley.
The Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed, and the U.S. Supreme Court then heard the case on petition for writ of certiorari (Dowling v. United States, 1985). One issue faced the Supreme Court, whether the interstate transportation of bootleg recordings, in infringement of copyright, violated the National Stolen Property Act (18 U.S.C. 2314). A majority of the Court held (with opinion by Justice Blackmun, dissent by Powell, joined by Burger and White) that infringement of copyright did not amount to "theft, conversion, or fraud."
The Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed, and the U.S. Supreme Court then heard the case on petition for writ of certiorari (Dowling v. United States, 1985). One issue faced the Supreme Court, whether the interstate transportation of bootleg recordings, in infringement of copyright, violated the National Stolen Property Act (18 U.S.C. 2314). A majority of the Court held (with opinion by Justice Blackmun, dissent by Powell, joined by Burger and White) that infringement of copyright did not amount to "theft, conversion, or fraud."
October 20, 2013
Hawkins v. Graceland (2002)
Overview: Defendant, Graceland, moves to exclude the testimony of
plaintiff's physician on the basis of violation of Rules 16 & 26 of the
F.R.C.P. primarily concerning discovery and duty of disclosure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)