Republic Pictures Corporation v. Roy Rogers

Ninth Circuit

Republic Pictures Corporation v. Roy Rogers

222 F.2d 950, 105 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 470, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 5432

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 19, 1955

Docket12-56867

StatusPublished

This text of 222 F.2d 950 (Republic Pictures Corporation v. Roy Rogers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Republic Pictures Corporation v. Roy Rogers, 222 F.2d 950, 105 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 470, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 5432 (9th Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In our opinion of June 4, 1954, 9 Cir., 213 F.2d 662, 666, it was directed “that the judgment of the lower court must be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment for defendants”. The appellee has filed a petition with this court seeking to have this court modify or clarify its mandate issued pursuant to that opinion so that the court below would be directed or authorized to enter a judgment which in addition to protecting “the motion picture rights” of the defendants as adjudicated in our opinion, would also protect “the non-motion picture rights (i. e. the name, voice and likeness rights) of petitioner”.

Our opinion stated: “All parties agree that pursuant to said contracts, appellee and only appellee has the right to use his name, picture or voice in advertisements (except for advertisements of motion pictures).” Thus our opinion disclosed that the defendant was making no claim to such non-motion picture rights and the same were not in issue in the case.

We observe no reason for modifying, clarifying or otherwise altering our judgment or the mandate and the petition is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In our opinion of June 4, 1954, 9 Cir., 213 F.2d 662, 666, it was directed “that the judgment of the lower court must be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment for defendants”. The appellee has filed a petition with this court seeking to have this court modify or clarify its mandate issued pursuant to that opinion so that the court below would be directed or authorized to enter a judgment which in addition to protecting “the motion picture rights” of the defendants as adjudicated in our opinion, would also protect “the non-motion picture rights (i. e. the name, voice and likeness rights) of petitioner”.

Our opinion stated: “All parties agree that pursuant to said contracts, appellee and only appellee has the right to use his name, picture or voice in advertisements (except for advertisements of motion pictures).” Thus our opinion disclosed that the defendant was making no claim to such non-motion picture rights and the same were not in issue in the case.

We observe no reason for modifying, clarifying or otherwise altering our judgment or the mandate and the petition is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 F.2d 950, 105 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 470, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 5432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/republic-pictures-corporation-v-roy-rogers-ca9-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack