The right of publicity is intended to protect the rights of persons, including celebrities, to profit from their "brand" and identities. Clearly, a supermarket that publishes an advertisement with the image of Michael Jordan, along with a red jersey with the number 23 emblazoned upon it can be held to violate Jordan's right of publicity if done without his consent. Does a person or celebrity, however, have a protectable interest in a song or catch phrase that may publicly be associated with, even though the image or likeness of the person/celebrity is not used? Read the case of Johnny Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., 698 F.2d 831 (6th Cir. 1983)

1. Did the Circuit Court of Appeals agree with the trial court's ruling?

2. Explain why the Circuit Court of Appeals agreed/disagreed with the trial court's ruling.

Please, write your own answer, because I do not understand this one that is already on site.

Thank you.