‘Eleanor’ Mustang Collection Isn’t Copyrightable, 9th Cir. Rules

A collection of customized Ford Mustangs featured in films including “Gone in 60 Seconds” isn’t eligible for copyright protection because it fails to qualify as a character, the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

The collection, called “Eleanor,” is “more akin to a prop than a character,” according to the published opinion issued Tuesday by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The three-judge panel backed a California federal district court’s decision denying Eleanor’s copyrightability and holding that Carroll Shelby Licensing Inc. didn’t violate a settlement agreement with the collection’s owner by producing similar Mustangs.

The appellate court reversed the US District Court for the Central District of California’s denial of Carroll Shelby’s request for a declaration that its Mustangs don’t infringe the Eleanor copyrights, sending the issue back to the lower court. It instructed the district court to reconsider Shelby’s request for declaratory relief, saying, “it would seem appropriate to declare that” Shelby’s Mustangs don’t infringe any asserted copyrights or contractual rights.

Four films have featured the Eleanor collection: “Gone in 60 Seconds” in 1974, 1982’s “The Junkman,” “Deadline Auto Theft” from 1983, and the 2000 remake of “Gone in 60 Seconds.” Denice Halicki owns the copyrights to the first three films and the merchandising rights to Eleanor as it appears in the remake film, according to the opinion.

Halicki previously sued Shelby for copyright infringement after it licensed a custom car shop to produce “GT-500E” Mustangs, alleging the car copied Eleanor’s design. The parties settled that lawsuit in 2009.

Later, Shelby licensed a custom car builder to produce another type of Mustang, and Halicki demanded the shop cease its production. Shelby then sued Halicki, alleging breach of their settlement, and Halicki brought counterclaims of copyright infringement.

The district court correctly concluded Eleanor isn’t entitled to copyright protection, the Ninth Circuit said, because it lacks anthropomorphic qualities including acting with agency and volition, expressing personality, or speaking. While courts have found vehicles such as the Batmobile are protectable, the opinion said Eleanor lacks any such conceptual qualities.

Further, the court said, Eleanor lacks consistent traits across the films and isn’t distinctive from “any number of sports cars appearing in car-centric action films.”

It affirmed that Shelby didn’t violate the settlement because the agreement prohibits Shelby only from manufacturing or licensing cars copying Eleanor’s distinctive hood and inset lights, not any other features.

Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle, sitting by designation from the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, authored the opinion.

Judges Jacqueline H. Nguyen and Salvador Mendoza Jr. joined the opinion.

Russ August & Kabat and Akerman LLP represent Carroll Shelby Licensing. Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP and Clark Hill PLC represent the Halicki entities.

The case is Carroll Shelby Licensing Inc. v. Halicki, 9th Cir., No. 23-3731, affirmed in part and reversed in part 5/27/25.