The Service Mark Alternative to the Right of Publicity: Estate of Presley v. Russen

Overview: This scholarly law review article discusses the Right of Publicity in light of the Estate of Elvis Presley v. Russen (1981) case.

Introduction: In recent years, the development of the doctrine of the right of publicity has gained significant attention from both courts and commentators. In essence, the doctrine protects the right of an individual, especially a public celebrity, to reap the benefits of the commercial use of his or her persona.

Citation: Patrick J. Heneghan and Herbert D. Wamsley, The Service Mark Alternative to the Right of Publicity: Estate of Presley v. Russen, 2 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 113 (1982)

Estate of Elvis Presley v. Russen (1981)

Larry Seth in The "Big El" Show

Overview: Estate of Elvis Presley sues producer of Elvis impersonator show for trademark infringement, common-law unfair competition, and infringement of right of publicity.

This case has a very long opinion with 54 footnotes and discusses the issues in great depth. The key issues discussed include standing, laches and acquiescence, preliminary injunction standards, right of publicity & trademark infringement.

Note: Rob Russen was the producer of the "Big El" show, the actual performer was Larry Seth. See Larry Seth - The Big El.

Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Sid Shaw Elvisly Yours (1999) (U.K. Case)

Overview: In this case, the Court of Appeal is ruling on an appeal by Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. against the ruling of the High Court in the 1997 case.

Here, the Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal by Elvis Presley Enterprises, ruling in favor of Sid Shaw and Elvisly Yours, in contrast to the American cases (1987) and (1991).

Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Sid Shaw Elvisly Yours (1997) (U.K. Case)

Overview: This case is virtually identical to the U.S. case, but was held in the U.K. This time, with Elvisly Yours as plaintiff, the court ruled in favor of Elvisly Yours, unlike in the American case.

Elvis Presley Enterprises appealed the ruling of the High Court (below) but, in 1999, the Court of Appeals dismissed their appeal, ruling in favor of Sid Shaw and Elvisly Yours.

Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Elvisly Yours (1991) (U.S. Case)

Overview: Assignee of trademarks of Elvis Presley sues U.K. company selling Elvis Memorabilia for trademark infringement, violations of Tennessee common law, and statutory rights of publicity. Court (1987) originally found in favor of plaintiff, EPE. Here, the Court of Appeals affirms the judgment of the District Court except with respect to the language of the injunction.

This case took place in the USA. Between 1997-1999, Elvis Presley Enterprises again sued Elvisly Yours, this time in the UK. In the UK case, the court ruled in favor of Elvisly Yours!

Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Elvisly Yours (1987) (U.S. Case)

Overview: Assignee of trademarks of Elvis Presley sues U.K. company selling Elvis Memorabilia for trademark infringement, violations of Tennessee common law, and statutory rights of publicity. Court finds in favor of plaintiff, EPE.

This case took place in the USA. Between 1997-1999, Elvis Presley Enterprises again sued Elvisly Yours, this time in the UK. In the UK case, the court ruled in favor of Elvisly Yours!

Elvis Case Sets Stage For First Amendment & Copyright Issues

By David Troedson
Source: Reuters/Billboard
December 19, 2003

The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held Nov. 6 that unauthorized use of extensive video footage of Elvis Presley for a "rockumentary" was not a fair use.

The case, Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Passport Videos, affects everyone who makes and watches video biographies, such as VH1's "Behind the Music," "E! True Hollywood Story" and A&E's "Biography."

The decision sets the stage for a potential collision of First Amendment and copyright issues, according to intellectual-property lawyers.

The ruling also suggests that makers of video biographies may have a harder time establishing a fair-use defense than print biographers.

Elvis Presley Enterprises, Leiber & Stoller and Sofa Entertainment Win Injunction in Federal Court

This article, originally published by Business Wire, gives a great overview of the Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Passport Video case and includes comments from Leiber and Stoller.

Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Capece (1998)

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.

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.

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!

Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Passport Video (2003)

Overview: Various copyright holders sue video company over unauthorized use of copyrighted material in exhaustive 16-hour video documentary of Elvis' life.

Related Opinions & Articles

• Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Passport Video (2004) (Amended Dissent)
• Elvis Presley Enterprises, Leiber & Stoller and Sofa Entertainment Win Injunction in Federal Court, Business Wire (Oct 23, 2002)
• Elvis Case Sets Stage For First Amendment & Copyright Issues, Reuters/Billboard (Dec 19, 2003)