Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Apple Corps, Ltd. v. A.D.P.R., Inc.

Apple Corps, Ltd. v. A.D.P.R., Inc.

United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division

November 16, 1993, Entered

No. 3:91-0675

Opinion

 [***1372]   [*344] MEMORANDUM

Presently pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment under the Lanham Act and the Tennessee Personal Rights Protection Act. The Defendants have filed an objection to this Motion. For the reasons outlined herein, the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment under Tennessee's Personal Rights Protection Act is hereby GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act is DENIED.

The following facts are not disputed. Plaintiff is the owner of the rights of publicity, trade names and trademarks [**2]  at common law of The Beatles music group and of its  [***1373]  former members individually. Plaintiff is solely authorized to exploit the unique elements and features of The Beatles. (Aspinall affidavit, para. 7.) Defendants are members of a performing group known as "1964 as the Beatles," which performs throughout the United States and Canada. (Defendants' Answer, para. 7.) The group seeks to recreate  [*345]  a Beatles concert from the years 1964 to 1966. (Benson Affidavit, para. 3; Defendants' Answer, para 7.) The group's objective is to look and sound as much like The Beatles as possible. (Benson deposition, p. 102.) Toward that end, the group imitates the overall appearances, hairstyles, dress, mannerisms, voices, equipment and musical performances of The Beatles. (Aspinall affidavit, para. 4; Grimes deposition, pp. 62-64.) On stage, the group's members refer to each other as "John," "Paul," "George" and "Ringo," adopt Liverpool accents, and perform only songs which The Beatles recorded or performed. (Benson deposition, pp. 64-65.) In addition, Defendants have placed The Beatles' logo on the group's bass drum, with "1964 as" written above the logo in small print. (Faherty affidavit, para. 2.)

It [**3]  is undisputed that Defendants engage in these performances as a commercial endeavor. That is, the group employs agents, who negotiate contracts with venue owners, and pursuant to these contracts, the group receives money in exchange for its performances. (Benson deposition, pp. 40-41.) In advertising these performances, Defendants publish posters and flyers in which they are photographed to look like The Beatles on the cover of the album, "A Hard Day's Night." (Grimes deposition, pp. 122-25.) Although they are not now, Defendants did, for approximately two years, market t-shirts, window decals, buttons, pictures and posters, featuring the group name "1964 as the Beatles." (Grimes deposition, p. 114-16; Work deposition, pp. 61-62.) The group derived income from this source as well. (Work deposition, pp. 61-62.)

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

843 F. Supp. 342 *; 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19223 **; 30 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1372 ***; 22 Media L. Rep. 1562; 1993 WL 581491

APPLE CORPS LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. A.D.P.R., INC., MARK DAVIS BENSON, GREG PHILLIP GEORGE, GARY ROY GRIMES, THOMAS ALLEN WORK, Defendants.

CORE TERMS

advertising, summary judgment, likeness, products, deposition, photographs, promoting, Lanham Act, Rights, Protection Act, posters, entertainment, injunction, use of a name, performing, exploit

Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Motions for Summary Judgment, General Overview, Judgments, Burdens of Proof, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Genuine Disputes, Supporting Materials, Business & Corporate Compliance, Federal Unfair Competition Law, False Designation of Origin, Elements of False Designation of Origin, Trademark Law, Entertainment Industry Falsity & Performance Misattribution, Trade Dress Protection, False Advertising, Lanham Act, Likelihood of Confusion, Torts, Invasion of Privacy, Appropriation, Subject Matter of Trademarks, Particular Subject Matter, Right of Publicity, Constitutional Law, Bill of Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Defenses, Freedom of Speech, Commercial Speech, Scope, Antitrust & Trade Law, Consumer Protection, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Special Marks, Terms Requiring Secondary Meaning, Evidence, Types of Evidence, Demonstrative Evidence, Photographs, Remedies, Injunctions, Permanent Injunctions, Grounds for Injunctions, Irreparable Harm