This case involves a dispute between two non-profit corporations concerning their respective rights to use Elvis Presley's name as part of their corporate name. Plaintiff was known as the Elvis Presley International Memorial Foundation, and defendant was known as the Elvis Presley Memorial Foundation. After the death of Elvis Presley, his estate incorporated Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. This corporation monitors and sells the right to the name and likeness of Elvis Presley. In 1981 a group of Presley fans incorporated the Elvis Presley International Memorial Foundation, a non-profit corporation supporting a trauma center that was part of the Memphis and Shelby County hospital system. Although they had approached the Presley estate for permission to use the Presley name, permission was denied. They incorporated anyway. A few years later, the Presley estate incorporated a different non-profit corporation called the Elvis Presley Memorial Foundation. Plaintiff sued to dissolve this corporation, claiming that it constituted unfair competition. Defendant corporation claimed that it had the right to use the Presley name under agreement with the Presley estate. Plaintiff claimed, that upon his death the name of Elvis Presley entered the public domain and that no descendible property right existed. They were therefore free to use the name. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of defendant.
The court spent considerable time discussing whether or not a right of property descends to one's heirs. It points out several public policy reasons why such a right of property does descend in the state of Tennessee. The Tennessee courts have long recognized that a person's business, a corporate name, a trade name, and the good will of a business are types of intangible personal property. Furthermore a celebrity's right of publicity has value. Recognizing the right of publicity as descendible is consistent with the recognition that an individual's right of testamentary distribution is an essential right. If a right of publicity is treated as an intangible property right in life, it is no less a right at death. It also recognizes one of the basic principles of jurisprudence that "one may not reap where another has sown." It is consistent with a celebrity's expectation that he is creating a valuable capital asset that would benefit his heirs and assigns after death. Failure to recognize the value of the contract rights of persons who have acquired the rights to use a celebrity's name and likeness would greatly diminish the value of those rights. Recognizing that the right of publicity can be descendible will further the public's interest in being free from deception regarding endorsement. Finally, recognizing the right of publicity is descendible is consistent with the policy against unfair competition. Thus, the court concluded that the right to use the Presley name was a property right that was descendible. (However, the court did reverse the summary judgment on the grounds that the Presley estate may have been guilty of laches in not asserting the right at an earlier time.)
1. Is there a descendible right of publicity in Tennessee?
2. Summarize each of the three issues in State ex rel. The Elvis Presley International Memorial Foundation v. Crowell.