## Facts

- A fan-organized nonprofit corporation formed in 1981 used “Elvis Presley” in its corporate name and engaged in memorial-related activities.
- After Elvis Presley’s 1977 death, his estate formed a licensing entity to manage the commercial use of his name and likeness and, in 1985, created a separate nonprofit foundation authorized by the estate to use “Elvis Presley” in its name.
- Elvis Presley’s name and likeness had been widely licensed during his lifetime for merchandise and other commercial uses, generating substantial revenue.
- The estate knew of the fan-organized nonprofit’s existence for years, communicated with it, and attended some events without immediately demanding cessation of the name usage.
- The fan-organized nonprofit filed an unfair competition action seeking dissolution of the estate-backed foundation and an injunction barring the use of “Elvis Presley” in its corporate name, asserting that no post-mortem right of publicity existed under Tennessee law.
- The estate’s licensing entity intervened to protect the claimed rights in Presley’s name and likeness and asserted that the estate had authorized the estate-backed foundation’s name use.
- The trial court ruled that Presley’s right to control commercial use of his name and image passed to his estate and granted summary judgment against the fan-organized nonprofit.

## Issues

1. Whether Tennessee law recognizes a post-mortem, descendible right of publicity in a celebrity’s name and likeness enforceable by the estate.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper given alleged factual disputes, including laches and acquiescence based on the estate’s prior conduct toward the fan-organized nonprofit.
3. Whether the estate’s licensing entity properly intervened to defend and assert interests in the commercial use of Presley’s name and likeness.

## Decision

- The court agreed that, under Tennessee law, the right of publicity is a property right that survives death and passes to the estate.
- The court vacated the summary judgment because material factual disputes remained, particularly concerning laches and the parties’ course of conduct.
- The court upheld the intervention of the estate’s licensing entity because it had a direct interest in the asserted publicity rights and their enforcement.

## Legal Principles

- Tennessee common law treats the right of publicity as an intangible property interest protecting the commercial value of a person’s identity, distinct from a personal right of privacy.
- A celebrity’s right of publicity may be descendible and enforceable by the estate, including through licensing and related corporate vehicles.
- State courts are not bound by federal courts’ predictions of state common law when determining the content of state-law rights.
- Summary judgment is improper where equitable defenses such as laches depend on disputed facts about delay, knowledge, and acquiescence.
- Intervention is appropriate where the intervenor claims a substantial interest that may be impaired by the disposition of the action.

## Conclusion

The court recognized that Tennessee law permits an estate to control and license the post-mortem commercial use of a celebrity’s name and likeness, but it required further proceedings because disputed facts—especially concerning laches and acquiescence—prevented resolution as a matter of law.


State ex rel. Elvis Presley Int’l Mem’l Found. v. Crowell, 733 S.W.2d 89 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987)