Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc. Case Brief

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit1983Docket #66192842
698 F.2d 831 218 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
3 min read

tl;dr: The court held that a company’s use of the phrase “Here’s Johnny” for portable toilets violated entertainer Johnny Carson’s right of publicity, even without using his name or likeness.

Legal Significance: This case significantly expanded the right of publicity, establishing that it protects a celebrity’s identity beyond just their name or likeness, to include well-known phrases or slogans.

Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc. Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

John W. Carson, host of “The Tonight Show,” was famously introduced with the phrase “Here’s Johnny.” This phrase became strongly associated with him by the public. Carson authorized its use for some ventures. Here’s Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc. (Appellee) began renting and selling portable toilets under the name “Here’s Johnny.” Appellee’s founder admitted knowing the phrase’s association with Carson and chose it for that reason, coupling it with “The World’s Foremost Commodian.” Carson and Johnny Carson Apparel, Inc. (Appellants) sued for unfair competition and invasion of privacy and publicity rights. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding no likelihood of confusion for the unfair competition claim and holding that the right of publicity only extended to a “name or likeness,” which “Here’s Johnny” did not qualify as. Appellants appealed the dismissal of the right of publicity claim.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does the unauthorized commercial use of a celebrity’s well-known introductory phrase, which is strongly identified with the celebrity but is not their actual name or likeness, constitute an invasion of the right of publicity?

Yes. The court vacated the district court’s judgment, holding that Appellee’s use Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in repreh

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does the unauthorized commercial use of a celebrity’s well-known introductory phrase, which is strongly identified with the celebrity but is not their actual name or likeness, constitute an invasion of the right of publicity?

Conclusion

This case established significant precedent by broadening the scope of the right Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Exc

Legal Rule

The right of publicity protects a celebrity's pecuniary interest in the commercial Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehend

Legal Analysis

The court determined that the district court's conception of the right of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Summary unavailable

No flash summary is available for this opinion.