Judge Dismisses Andy Griffith’s Lawsuit Against Andy Griffith

Andrew Samuel Griffith, the 80-year-old actor who played television’s winning lawyer Ben Matlock, didn’t have much luck winning in a real-world court. U.S. District Judge John Shabaz dismissed the actor’s lawsuit against a Wisconsin man, saying that the man has not violated federal copyright or trademark laws by legally changing his name to Andy Griffith.

Last year, William Harold Fenrick, who lives in southwestern Wisconsin, decided to run for Grant County sheriff. In a failed attempt to drum up votes, Fenrick decided to change his name to Andy Jackson Griffith, and during his campaign he compared himself to the television sheriff in the fictional town of Mayberry. In ads criticizing sneaky law enforcement procedures such as speed traps, he would say emphatically, ‘They never did unethical stuff like that in Mayberry!" Andy Griffith the candidate lost the election, but Andy Griffith the actor persisted with his lawsuit.

The actor, who is best known for playing the sheriff of Mayberry in "The Andy Griffith Show," lives in North Carolina and owns Mayberry Enterprises, which controls the intellectual property rights to his name and the characters he has portrayed. Shabaz said that although the actor does have his character’s name copyrighted, candidate Griffith did not violate any laws by adopting the name for himself because he did not seek to use the name in a commercial transaction, but instead he used it "to seek elective office, fundamental First Amendment protected speech."

Shabaz wrote that although voters probably connected the name "to the famous actor and to his famous sheriff character," they certainly did not believe the actor was running for office or sponsoring the candidate, and Fenrick changing his name did not cause the actor any damage to his reputation or his income. "Plaintiff's campaign attempted to take advantage of a connection to Sheriff Taylor's honesty and ethical behavior - hardly connections which would suggest damage to plaintiff's reputation," Shabaz wrote.

Jeff Scott Olson, the attorney representing the former candidate Griffith, said that his client is relieved by the ruling because he doesn’t have much money to defend himself if the case had gone to trial. Olson said that his client didn’t make a big deal about his name change until a television station in Madison reported it in a news story. After word got around, the candidate did eventually capitalize on the publicity to call attention to his platform, which called for fewer police stops, a ban on warrants and wiretapping, and better treatment of prisoners. "He had a real platform that I Just loved," Olson said. "It had nothing to do with Andy Griffith the actor. It was all Andrew Jackson Griffith’s ideas."

Olson said the actor can continue to pursue the case in state court or appeal the federal judge’s decision. "That will be up to Andrew Samuel Griffith," he said. "But I hope that he'll be satisfied that based on what he's learned during this case that my client is not a threat to his reputation."

If the actor Andy Griffith is so worried about his reputation, perhaps he should have thought about how the public would view his attempt to trample the small-town dreams of an admirer who only wanted to celebrate the old-fashioned ethics and values that the name "Andy Griffith" used to represent all across America.