Andrew Samuel Griffith, the 80-year-old actor who played television’s exceptional lawyer Ben Matlock, didn’t have much luck winning weight a real-world court. U.S. District Judge John Shabaz dismissed the actor’s lawsuit against a Wisconsin man, saying that the man has not desecrated federal copyright or trademark laws by legally changing his name to Andy filmmaker.
Last year, William Harold Fenrick, who lives in southwestern Wisconsin, decided to run for grant County evaluator. In a failed attempt to cask up votes, Fenrick decided to adjust his name to Andy Jackson Griffith, and all over his campaign he compared himself to the television sheriff moment the untrue town of Mayberry. repercussion ads criticizing sneaky law enforcement procedures not unlike as speed traps, he would say emphatically, ‘They never did immoral stuff luxuriate in that in Mayberry!” Andy griffith the candidate lost the election, but Andy Griffith the actor persisted shroud his lawsuit.
The actor, who is best known because playing the sheriff of Mayberry in „The Andy Griffith Show,” lives in North Carolina and owns Mayberry Enterprises, which controls the intellectual property rights to his quote further the characters he has portrayed. Shabaz spoke of that youngsters the actor does have his character’s name copyrighted, candidate Griffith did not violate any laws by adopting the name for himself because he did not seek to use the name in a commercial transaction, but instead he used it „to seek elective office, fundamental First amendment protected speech.”
Shabaz wrote that although voters probably attached the name „to the famous actor and to his eminent sheriff character,” they certainly did now not believe the actor became elongate for office or sponsoring the candidate, and Fenrick changing his adduce did not cause the player any damage to his reputation or his income. „Plaintiff’s campaign attempted to take potential of a appointment to sheriff Taylor’s straightforwardness and ethical behavior – hardly connections which would suggest damage to plaintiff’s reputation,” Shabaz wrote.
Jeff Scott Olson, the attorney representing the former candidate Griffith, said that his client is relieved by the ruling because he doesn’t have much money to preserve himself if the event had gone to trial. Olson referred to that his client didn’t commence a jumbo plan about his name change until a television station in madison reported authentic grease a news story. After word bought around, the candidate did eventually capitalize on the publicity to call consideration to his platform, which known as for fewer police stops, a ban on warrants and wiretapping, and better treatment of prisoners. „He had a real intendment that I Just loved,” Olson said. „It had zero to do with Andy griffith the actor. It turned into all andrew Jackson Griffith’s ideas.”
Olson spoke of the actor can continue to pursue the case in state court or enchantment the federal judge’s decision. „That will correspond to adding to to saint Samuel Griffith,” he said. „But I hope that he’ll be convinced that based on what he’s learned during this case that my customer is not a threat to his reputation.”
If the musician Andy griffith is so worried about his reputation, possibly he need to have thought approximately how the public would view his attempt to trample the small-town goals of an admirer who peculiar wanted to rejoice the old-fashioned ethics and values that the offer „Andy Griffith” used to expound all throughout America.
