## Facts

- Charles Chaplin developed and consistently performed a distinctive “tramp” screen character marked by a specific costume and mannerisms that became widely identified with him.
- Charles Amador and others produced films in which Amador performed as “Charlie Aplin,” using a costume, physical movements, and comedic business closely resembling Chaplin’s well-known character.
- Defendants advertised their films as featuring “Charlie Aplin” in the “well-known character, famous the world over,” allegedly to cause audiences to believe the films were Chaplin’s or authorized by him.
- Chaplin sued in equity to enjoin defendants from using the “Charlie Aplin” name (or similar names) and from simulating his character in a manner likely to mislead the public.
- Defendants denied fraudulent intent and argued Chaplin did not originate tramp comedy, citing prior similar stage performances by other comedians.
- After a bench trial, the trial court found Chaplin had originated and perfected the particular character at issue, the public identified it with him, and defendants’ conduct was fraudulent and likely to deceive; it entered a permanent injunction.
- Defendants appealed, challenging the findings and the conclusion that their conduct constituted unfair competition.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants’ imitation of Chaplin’s distinctive screen persona, use of the name “Charlie Aplin,” and related advertising constituted unfair competition by deceiving the public and appropriating Chaplin’s goodwill.
2. Whether a court of equity may enjoin deceptive use of an imitative persona and name where the protected interest is a performer’s reputation and goodwill rather than a conventional trademarked product.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and permanent injunction.
- The court held defendants’ use of a confusingly similar name and simulation of Chaplin’s distinctive character, combined with their promotional representations, amounted to unfair competition and a fraud on the public and Chaplin.
- The court concluded equity could restrain such conduct to prevent deceptive diversion of trade and appropriation of goodwill.
- The injunction was upheld as limited to deceptive simulation; it did not bar others from portraying tramp characters generally.

## Legal Principles

- Unfair competition focuses on preventing deception of the public and protecting established goodwill from fraudulent appropriation.
- A performer is not granted exclusive rights to a general character type, but may obtain relief against simulation of a specific, recognizable persona that the public associates with the performer.
- Confusingly similar names and advertising designed to suggest association, sponsorship, or identity are strong evidence of likely deception and unfair competition.
- Goodwill may attach to identifying features beyond traditional labels or marks, including a distinctive performance persona that signifies a single source to the public.
- Injunctive relief is appropriate where continuing deceptive practices threaten ongoing harm and monetary damages are difficult to measure.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an injunction preventing defendants from using a confusingly similar stage name and from imitating Chaplin’s distinctive screen persona in a way likely to mislead audiences, treating the conduct as unfair competition and fraud that improperly traded on Chaplin’s goodwill while leaving others free to perform non-deceptive tramp comedy.


Chaplin v. Amador, 93 Cal. App. 358, 269 P. 544 (Ct. App. 1928)