CBS Inc. v. Liederman - 866 F. Supp. 763 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)

Rule:

Likelihood of confusion has been defined as the likelihood that an appreciable number of ordinarily prudent purchasers are likely to be misled, or simply confused, as to the source, sponsorship or affiliation of defendant's goods or services. The law of the Second Circuit with respect to likelihood of confusion was set forth in a previous case. While not absolutely dispositive, the Polaroid factors establish a balancing test consisting of the following factors: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the degree of similarity between the two marks; (3) the proximity of the two marks; (4) the likelihood that the senior user of the mark will bridge the gap; (5) evidence of actual confusion; (6) the junior user's bad faith in adopting the mark; (7) the quality of the junior user's mark; and (8) the sophistication of the relevant consumer group.

Facts:

CBS Inc. ("CBS") owned a facility designed for producing television shows, which was named Television City. CBS registered the service mark Television City. David and William Liederman ("defendants") planned to open a restaurant called Television City. CBS sued for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution, claiming that the restaurant would convey a false impression of affiliation with CBS.

Issue:

Was there sufficient evidence to show a likelihood of confusion between the marks?

Answer:

No

Conclusion:

The court denied CBS’ motion. CBS failed to show a likelihood of confusion between the marks and thus failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. CBS’ mark was strong only within the field of television production and was unlikely to be harmed by a restaurant's use of that term. There was little or no overlap in services provided by each party. For the same reasons, CBS’ claim under 11 U.S.C.S. § 1125 was without merit. CBS’ mark was not distinctive and had not acquired secondary meaning, and thus CBS was not entitled to protection under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 368-d.