Who owns the name DeLorean?

DeLorean:  What's in a name? 

Photo of my backlit bumper
from many years ago, when digital cameras were awful!

The purpose of my previous writing was to document the history of the intellectual property of DeLorean Motor Company, but there is another issue being discussed in the community:  Who owns the name "DeLorean"?  

 

To me, the answer is clear: the DeLorean family! It has long been associated with the man, John Z. DeLorean, who has two children (Zach and Kat).  They are his heirs and is their name as well, so they own it.  Just like with the intellectual property, I have not found any record that JZD gave permission to use his name or sold any "personality rights". 

This is not a new issue. Courts have already rendered decisions in cases of other deceased celebrities.  The big examples are Elvis and, more recently, Prince.  I have no legal training, but Peter Colin, Jr does.

Personality Rights

Personality Rights relates that an activity that “appropriates the commercial value of a person's identity by using without consent the person’s name, likeness, or other indicia of identity for purposes of trade is subject to liability.”  I think anyone arguing that the "DeLorean Motor Company" can be separated from the man John Z. DeLorean is fooling themselves. 

Unfortunately, this is mostly regulated on the state level. There are some protections under federal law, most notably “false affiliation, designation of origin, or endorsement in connection with goods or services used in interstate commerce.” 

 

What was the motivation for using the DeLorean name?  Did the company in Texas choose to register themselves as "DeLorean Motor Company" in 1995 to falsely affiliate themselves with the company founded by John Z. DeLorean? Or cause confusion?  I guess that is a matter of opinion, but there are several examples of interviews implying or outright stating that the company in Texas is the same company founded by JZD. I have found no evidence of an effort to correct the error.  But, does that even matter?  By using the name "DeLorean" they have at the very least implied endorsement.  For sure, it "is likely to cause confusion" as specifically stated in Section 43 of the Lanham Act. 

Quoting from the same article, this goes well beyond the trademark issues.  "... the right of publicity protects the commercial value of a person’s own identity as opposed to the commercial value of symbols and words protected by trademark".  DeLorean is a person's name and identity. 

 

Is creating a fictional history for "DeLorean Motor Company" an effort to convey that the Alpha 5 can trace it's lineage back to the man, John Z DeLorean? 

Yup.  The mans will.

State law provisions for personality rights are based on where the person died.  In this case, New Jersey laws apply.  New Jersey courts have treated the right to one's name and likeness as a transferable property right, meaning the rights to the name "DeLorean" would be passed on to his named heirs, Zach and Kat DeLorean.  A lot more information on NJ precedent can be found at Right of Publicity. 

The "Sally Baldwin" problem

DMCH/Baldwin settlement

As previously discussed, Sally Baldwin took legal action against DMCH, and settled for an "undisclosed" amount of money. We assume that it was a small amount based on the comments posted by James Espy on DMCTALK; "Perhaps the settlement amount Sally agreed to was below a threshold that made it unattractive to Morganroth to pursue".  We know Morganroth was aware of the settlement because he provided testimony related to the action.

 

In my opinion, the DMCH lawyers knew that they had a slim chance of winning the case because of the personal identity issues spelled out in the Lanham Act and took advantage of Sally's financial motivations. Another question is if Sally Baldwin had the right to enter into a settlement agreement with DMCH.  So far, I feel all evidence points to no.  

John's will makes no mention of Sally Baldwin. I have found no legal record of a marriage between her and John Z. DeLorean. I also have not found any references to "Sally DeLorean" until after John's death in 2005. While the marital status of Sally would impact the share of the estate the named heirs receive (based on New Jersey law), it DOES NOT give the spouse any control over the affairs of the estate.  The executor named in the will (in this case, Zachary) would remain unchanged.  With the number of lawyers working for both Sally and DMCH, I'd think they did their due diligence to make sure Sally was within her right to sign an agreement on behalf of the estate, but I see no evidence of it. The settlement agreement is made between John Z. DeLorean Estate and DMC Texas, but no record of approval by Zach or Kat DeLorean. 

DeLorean is still a person's name!

Some have said that John made no effort to protect the intellectual property, which is untrue as I have already discussed.  There is also evidence that John was still actively using the name and trademark for commerce continuously from 1981 until his death in 2005 (recent example here). Does that matter?  It is his name and therefore covered by the personality rights.  

Example of a document dated 1997 still using the
name and trademark for DeLorean Motor Company

The settlement does not help the situation, but it may also not be the end of it.  For over 20 years, Kat DeLorean has represented her father and as a result, has become well-recognized. Some may say celebrity - not that it matters according to NJ Law.  What are her personality rights here?  

 

Kat has been working on her Legacy Project for the primary purpose of helping the next generation of automotive engineers achieve their goals.  Part of that project includes building a new car.  There seems to be efforts underway to prevent Kat from using the intellectual property of her own name, as claimed by the company in Texas.  This just blows my mind!  How is it that our current system restricts someone from using their own name?!  

The commercial use of the name "DeLorean" is causing financial and reputation harm to the living people with that name.  Given what I've stated here, is it possible Kat DeLorean has a case against the companies in Texas?  <insert lame BTTF reference to future here, blah blah blah>