Opinion ID: 781994
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Misleading Prong

Text: 121 In Rogers, the court held that if the title of the work is artistically relevant to its content, there is no violation of the Lanham Act unless the title explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work. 875 F.2d at 999. The court noted with reference to the first prong of the Rogers analysis: 122 A misleading title with no artistic relevance cannot be sufficiently justified by a free expression interest. For example, if a film-maker placed the title Ginger and Fred on a film to which it had no artistic relevance at all, the arguably misleading suggestions as to source or content implicitly conveyed by the title could be found to violate the Lanham Act as to such a film. 123 Id. 124 In discussing the second prong of its analysis, in the context of using a celebrity's name in the title of some artistic work, the court explained: 125 [T]itles with at least minimal artistic relevance to the work may include explicit statements about the content of the work that are seriously misleading. For example, if the characters in the film in this case had published their memoirs under the title The True Life Story of Ginger and Fred, and if the film-maker had then used that fictitious book title as the title of the film, the Lanham Act could be applicable to such an explicitly misleading description of content. But many titles with a celebrity's name make no explicit statement that the work is about that person in any direct sense; the relevance of the title may be oblique and may become clear only after viewing or reading the work. As to such titles, the consumer interest in avoiding deception is too slight to warrant application of the Lanham Act.... Where a title with at least some artistic relevance to the work is not explicitly misleading as to the content of the work, it is not false advertising under the Lanham Act. 126 Id. at 1000 (footnote omitted). 127 We considered all the facts presented to us and concluded that, with reference to the first prong of the Rogers analysis, the issue of artistic relevance of the title Rosa Parks to the lyrics of the song is highly questionable and cannot be resolved as a matter of law. However, if, on remand, a trier of fact, after a full evidentiary hearing, concludes that the title is used in some symbolic or metaphorical sense, application of the Rogers analysis, under the particular facts of this case, would appear to be complete. In the present case, the title Rosa Parks make[s] no explicit statement that the work is about that person in any direct sense. In other words, Defendants did not name the song, for example, The True Life Story of Rosa Parks or Rosa Parks' Favorite Rap. 128 In short, whether the title Rosa Parks has any artistic relevance to the content of the song is an issue that must be resolved by a finder of fact following an evidentiary hearing and not by a judge as a matter of law upon the limited record submitted in support of a motion for summary judgment. If, on remand, the finder of fact determines that OutKast placed the title Rosa Parks on a song to which it had no artistic relevance at all, then this would constitute a violation of the Lanham Act and judgment should be entered in favor of Plaintiff. However, if the finder of fact determines that the title is artistically relevant to the song's content, then the inquiry is at an end because the title is not explicitly misleading as to the content of the work. In that event, judgment should be entered in favor of Defendants.