I know that a person’s name or likeness cannot be used in advertising without consent. A person has a right not to be seen as endorsing a product or business unless he/she wishes to endorse the product or business.
But what about this scenario:
Suppose a town in Indiana is really enamored of Mike Pence. Interstate 69 runs through the town and they would like to name it Mike Pence Expressway. Cool, right?
Naturally, there are businesses along the Pence Expressway. Suppose a guy opens up a bar. He calls it Peter’s on Pence. Of course, it’s a gay bar. Can the real life Mike Pence object to the use of the word “Pence” in the name of a gay bar? Can the owner of the bar say that “Pence” refers to the business’s location, not to the former governor and current Vice President.
This thought process began while I was in El Paso, Texas. There is a part of town in which many of the streets are named for golfers. Some of the golfers are alive today, some are not. Some of the streets are minor neighborhood roads and others are major thoroughfares. Along the major streets, some businesses use the name of the street in their names. What if a business is not of the sort that the real-life, living golfer would not approve? What if the business were a golf pro shop not associated with the golfer who lends his name to the street? Could the use of the golfer’s name imply an endorsement of the pro shop where no such relationship exists?
Pretty sure that Pence has no legal recourse in the scenario you described as far as defamation goes. In fact, even if owner wanted to name it something like “Vice President Mike Pence’s Favorite Gay Bar”, he’d probably be legally in the clear. In fact, he might even be more in the clear if the name was obviously absurd.
Because Pence is a public figure, and because the bar’s name would not be taken as a serious indication of endorsement by Pence, it’s parody/opinion. No reasonable person would assume that Mike Pence approved of this gay bar, so it’s not defamatory.
The golf example is different, since a reasonable person might believe that, for example, Jack Nicklaus had actually endorsed a shop called Nicklaus Golf Supplies, or whatever. Could also be trademark issues, since many golf pros license their names for products. If you use the trademark without approval, big bucks.
Personality rights are a kind of grey area, but they most closely resemble trademark. It’s mostly left up to the states (but see the Lanham Act), and California and (perhaps surprisingly) Tennessee have pretty strict regulations.
The only factual answer is that it would be up to a court to decide. Depends on a lot of things. What the full street name is, what the full business name is, where and when this all happens.
When I think about personality rights, I first think about celebrities. When I think about celebrities, I first think about LA or NYC, not Nashville or Graceland.
The Elvis Presley estate was fundamental in getting legislation enacted that covers this. The estate was nearly worthless until Priscilla Presley filed enough lawsuits and got legislation passed that ended up establishing the pattern across the US.
The most similar case I can think of is Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Capece.
In short, a nightclub called The Velvet Elvis opened in Houston. It was themed around the obsession with pointless things so popular in the 70s, such as lava lamps and black velvet paintings. They even obtained a service mark.
The Elvis people didn’t like it, not one bit, so they sued.
The court mostly sided with the nightclub, finding that there was no trademark infringement, no dilution or tarnishment, and that the Texas rights of publicity were not violated. So there was no monetary judgment, but the nightclub had to change its advertising so that the name Elvis was not prominent and no graphics of Elvis were used.
So naming something after Elvis would have been a no no, but naming it after a velvet Elvis was fine (in those particular circumstances).