329 F.3d 437 (6th Cir. 2003)
Rosa Parks first gained prominence as a symbol of the civil rights movement in 1955 when, while riding a segregated bus in Montgomery, Alabama, she refused to yield her seat to a white passenger and move to the back of the bus.1 This single act of defiance precipitated a 381-day bus boycott that ended segregation on public transportation and ultimately sparked the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.2 Over the following decades, Parks used her resulting celebrity status to promote civil and human rights causes and authorized the release of a 1995 tribute album entitled Verity Records Presents: A Tribute to Mrs. Rosa Parks.3
Subsequently, in September 1998, the musical group OutKast, consisting of recording artists André Benjamin and Antwan Patton and produced by LaFace Records, released the album Aquemini.4 The album's first single was a song titled Rosa Parks. The song's lyrics contain no reference to Parks or the civil rights movement.5 Instead, they use the phrase move to the back of the bus metaphorically in the chorus to suggest that competing musicians should yield prominence.6 The album sold millions of copies. The song became a commercial success and was licensed for use in movies and television programs.7
In 1999, Parks filed suit in Michigan state court against LaFace Records, OutKast, and several other defendants.8 She alleged that the defendants' use of her name violated her right of publicity, the Lanham Act, and constituted false light invasion of privacy, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.9 The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan based on federal question jurisdiction from the Lanham Act claim.10
Following cross-motions for summary judgment supported by stipulated facts, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims.11 Parks then appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.12
Whether the defendants' use of Rosa Parks' name as the title of their song violates her common law right of publicity under Michigan law?13
Michigan recognizes a common law right of publicity protecting against appropriation of one's name or likeness for commercial benefit.14
The district court's grant of summary judgment on the right of publicity claim is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.17
Whether the defendants' use of Rosa Parks' name as the title of their song is likely to cause consumer confusion as to her sponsorship or approval under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)?18
Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), prohibits uses of a name that are likely to cause consumer confusion as to sponsorship or approval of goods.19
Yes. The Rogers test applies to artistic works and protects the title unless it has no artistic relevance or explicitly misleads as to source or content.2021 Parks presented evidence including twenty-one consumer affidavits showing actual confusion as to whether she endorsed the song or album.22 The song title creates a genuine issue of material fact on likelihood of confusion under the Rogers artistic-relevance prong because the lyrics bear no relation to Parks or the civil rights movement.23
The district court's grant of summary judgment on the Lanham Act claim is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.24
Whether the defendants' conduct in titling the song constitutes false light invasion of privacy, defamation, or intentional infliction of emotional distress under Michigan law?25
No. The song contains no factual statements about Parks and does not portray her in a false light.28 The use of her name in the title, while potentially actionable under other theories, does not constitute extreme and outrageous conduct under Michigan law.29 Parks has not shown any false statement or extreme conduct sufficient to support these claims.30
The district court's grant of summary judgment on the false light, defamation, and intentional infliction claims is affirmed.31