## Facts

- William M. Felsher, a former University of Evansville (UE) professor terminated in 1991, later engaged in online activity directed at UE and certain administrators.
- In 1997, Felsher created websites and email accounts incorporating portions of the names of UE’s president and senior administrators and included “UE,” a common abbreviation for the university.
- The websites posted Felsher’s articles accusing UE officials and employees of wrongdoing and professional incompetence.
- Using email accounts that appeared to belong to the officials, Felsher sent messages to other universities nominating the officials for various academic positions.
- UE and the officials alleged the websites and accounts misappropriated their names/identities and caused confusion about the source or sponsorship of the communications.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for UE and the officials and entered a permanent injunction broadly restricting Felsher’s use of UE-related names in websites/emails and prohibiting certain related conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether the University of Evansville, as a corporation, may bring a common-law invasion-of-privacy action.
2. Whether the permanent injunction against Felsher was necessary and proper in scope.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court held that UE, as a corporate entity, cannot maintain a common-law invasion-of-privacy claim because privacy is a personal right.
- The Court recognized that UE may seek relief under other doctrines, including unfair competition and related business tort theories, where online conduct creates confusion about source, affiliation, or sponsorship.
- The Court indicated the individual officials could pursue personal claims such as invasion of privacy by appropriation based on misuse of their names/identities in internet identifiers.
- The Court held injunctive relief may be available to prevent online “assumption of identity,” but any injunction must be narrowly tailored to stop misleading impersonation rather than suppress protected criticism.
- The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings, including adjustment of theories of recovery and any injunctive terms.

## Legal Principles

- Common-law invasion of privacy protects personal interests of natural persons; a corporation generally has no such privacy right.
- A corporation injured by misleading use of its identity may proceed under unfair competition and related tort theories aimed at preventing confusion as to source or sponsorship.
- Invasion of privacy by appropriation may apply where an individual’s name or identity is used in a manner that benefits the user by misleading others, including through internet identifiers.
- Injunctions restraining identity impersonation or source confusion are permissible, but prior restraints must be limited to unlawful conduct and not bar non-misleading commentary or criticism.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a corporate invasion-of-privacy claim but allowed relief for online identity confusion through unfair-competition-type doctrines and permitted injunctions only to the extent they specifically prevent misleading impersonation rather than restrict protected speech.


Felsher v. Univ. of Evansville, 755 N.E.2d 589 (Ind. 2001)