Page 156 - Law and the Media

The ‘New’ Right to Privacy
...urgency of communicating a warning is so great, or the source of the
information so reliable that publication of a suspicion or speculation is justified.

The court proposed the examples of facing danger from suspected terrorists or the
distribution of contaminated food or drugs.

In Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd (2001), the court shed further light on the
parameters of an individual’s ‘right of reputation’ and its interrelation with freedom of
speech and reporting by newspapers and journalists. In that case, the defendant newspaper,
its editor and two of its journalists were found to have defamed the claimant by referring to
investigations concerning money laundering and inferring that he was closely involved with
the Russian mafia. The defendants claimed that the public was entitled to be informed of
allegations that were of such a serious nature. The court noted that:

. . . great services [have been] rendered to the public by skilled and fearless
investigative journalists in uncovering fraud and corruption and incompetence, in
high places as well as in low.

However, in finding against the defendants, the court referred to the often cited dicta in the
case of Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd (1999):

. . . reputation is an integral and important part of the individual . . . Protection of
reputation is conducive to the public good.

8.2.5 Trademarks

Unlike the law in the United States, English law does not protect ‘personality’ or ‘character’
rights. However, in order to prevent interference with ‘right to one’s image’, several
celebrities in the United Kingdom have registered their names as trademarks in order to
guarantee some sort of protection. Trademarks identify products or services. They use the
symbol ™ if the trademark is not registered or ® if the trademark is registered to demonstrate
protection. If the trademark is registered, special rules apply simplifying the way in which
it can be protected. A trademark must be capable of being represented graphically, and must
distinguish the product or services of one business from another.

However, it is difficult to register a famous name as a trademark. In the case of Re
Applications by Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc (1997), an application by the Estate of Elvis
Presley in 1989 for registration of the names ‘Elvis’ and ‘Elvis Presley’ was opposed by a
man called Sid Shaw. Shaw had been trading under the name ‘Elvisly Yours’ for the previous
few years. He opposed the application on the basis that Presley had been dead for several
years, many different companies produced Elvis products, and his name could not be
associated with any one particular company or brand. The trademark registry rejected Shaw’s
opposition. The High Court upheld his opposition, as did the Court of Appeal. Other
119