Rogers v. Republic Productions, Inc.

104 F. Supp. 328, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4316
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedJanuary 26, 1952
Docket13220
StatusPublished

This text of 104 F. Supp. 328 (Rogers v. Republic Productions, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rogers v. Republic Productions, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 328, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4316 (S.D. Cal. 1952).

Opinion

HALL, District Judge.

Findings of Fact

(1) The plaintiff Roy Rogers was at the time of the commencement of the within action and now is a citizen and resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

(2) The defendant Republic Productions, Inc. was at the time of the commencement of the within action and now is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York and is a citizen of said State. The defendant Hollywood Television Service, Inc. was at the time of the commencement of the within action and now is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and is a citizen of said State. Said defendant Hollywood Televi *331 sion Service, Inc. was organized on or about November, 19S0, for the express purpose of selling, leasing, or otherwise distributing through the medium of television, certain of the motion pictures formerly produced by the defendant Republic Productions, Inc. The defendant Republic Pictures Corporation was at the time of the commencement of the within action and now is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York and is a citizen of said State. The defendants Republic Productions, Inc. and Hollywood Television Service, Inc. were at the time of the commencement of the within action and now are each wholly owned subsidiaries of defendant Republic Pictures Corporation. The rights of defendants Republic Pictures Corporation and Hollywood Television Service, Inc., and each of them, insofar as the subject matter of this action is concerned, are no greater than and are subject to at least the same limitations as the rights of defendant Republic Productions, Inc.

(3) The within action is a civil action wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of Three Thousand Dol lars ($3,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs.

(4) Plaintiff adopted the name “Roy Rogers” for all professional purposes in early 1938 and has at all times since said date been known professionally as Roy Rogers. By change of name proceedings plaintiff caused his name to be formally and legally changed to “Roy Rogers” in 1942. As against the defendants in this action and each of them and anyone claiming through or under them, or any of them, the plaintiff is the sole and exclusive owner of his name “Roy Rogers” and his voice and likeness and of the name and likeness of his horse “Trigger” for any and all commercial advertising purposes whatsoever, as said term “commercial advertising purpose” is defined in Finding No. 13.

(5) Plaintiff has been for many years and now is an internationally known motion picture, stage, radio and rodeo star and has achieved and maintained for many years and now has a great and widespread fame and prominence as an actor, singer, rodeo performer, horseman and personality. Plaintiff has been for many years and now is well known and identified in the public mind throughout the United States and many foreign countries as “Roy Rogers”. Plaintiff’s fame as a western star has been and now is such that at all times since 1942 he has also been and now is well known and identified in the public mind as “King of the Cowboys”.

(6) On or about October 13, 1937, the plaintiff Roy Rogers whose true name was then Leonard Slye, entered into a written Agreement with the defendant Republic Productions, Inc. Said Agreement was and is in printed form, except for a few typewritten words and figures, and was prepared by counsel for the defendants Republic Productions, Inc. and Republic Pictures Corporation. At and before the time of the signing of said Agreement the plaintiff was not represented by any attorney or agent acting for or on behalf of plaintiff. A full, true and correct copy of said Agreement was offered and received in evidence as plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 17 and is attached hereto marked Exhibit A and made a part hereof, and for convenience and brevity will hereinafter in these Findings sometimes be referred to as the “1937 Agreement”. By various letter agreements, which the Court finds to be immaterial to the dispute herein involved, the term of the 1937 Agreement was extended to on or about February 28, 1948.

(7) During the term of the 1937 Agreement the defendant Republic Productions, Inc. produced a total of sixty-three (63) motion pictures in each of which the plaintiff Roy Rogers was starred in the leading male role. A true and correct list of the titles of said motion pictures and the dates of completion of photography thereof is set forth in Exhibit B which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.

(8) On or about March 9, 1948, the plaintiff Roy Rogers entered into a written Agreement with the defendant Republic Productions, Inc. A full, true and correct copy of said Agreement which bears the date of February 28, 1948, was offered and received in evidence as plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 20 and is attached hereto marked Ex- *332 Mbit C and made a part hereof, and for convenience and brevity will hereinafter in these Findings sometimes be referred to as the “1948 Agreement”. The term of said 1948 Agreement commenced on March 1, 1948, and ended on or about May 27, 1951.

(9) During the term of the 1948 Agreement the defendant Republic Productions, Inc. produced a total of eighteen (18) motion pictures in each of which the plaintiff Roy Rogers was starred in the leading •male role. A true and correct list of the titles of said motion pictures and the dates of completion of photography thereof is set forth in Exhibit D which is attached hereto and .made a part hereof.

(10) During the period of time covered by the terms of the 1937 Agreement and the 1948 Agreement or one of them, in addition to the eighty-one (81) motion pictures in which the plaintiff was starred (listed in Exhibits B and D hereto), the defendant Republic Productions, Inc. .produced four (4) feature length motion pictures entitled respectively, “Dark Command”, “Lake Placid Serenade”, “Brazil” and “Hit Parade of 1947”, in each of which the plaintiff appeared incidentally but did not star and during the term of the 1937 Agreement the plaintiff appeared in two (2) additional feature length motion pictures entitled respectively “Hollywood Canteen” and “Melody Time”, which two motion pictures were produced by motion picture producers (not parties to this suit) pursuant to the “loan-out” provisions of the 1937 Agreement.

(11) During the period 1938 to 1951, both inclusive, plaintiff has, with the knowledge and encouragement of defendants Republic Productions, Inc. and Republic Pictures Corporation, made substantially' in excess of 640 personal appearances, more than 563 rodeo appearances and substantially in excess of 242 radio appearances. Said .defendants and plaintiff have from time to time each expended large sums of money in publicizing plaintiff in connection with some of said' appearances. Through the 'expenditure of said sums of money, but primarily through.and because.of his own personality, industriousness, ability, performance, and exemplary personal conduct and private life, .plaintiff has built up and maintained over a period of many years, and he now enjoys in the mind of the public, a great and widespread popularity, trust, good will, confidence and esteem for himself personally and for his name “Roy Rogers”.

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

Related

§ 1332
28 U.S.C. § 1332

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 F. Supp. 328, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-republic-productions-inc-casd-1952.