King v. Innovation Books - 976 F.2d 824 (2d Cir. 1992)

Rule:

A false reference to the origin of a work, or a reference which, while not literally false, is misleading or likely to confuse, may form the basis of a claim under section of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a), prohibiting use in commerce of any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact which is likely to cause confusion or to deceive as to affiliation, connection, or association. 

Facts:

Defendants-appellants, Allied Vision, Ltd. and New Line Cinema Corporation, appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granting a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiff-appellee Stephen King in connection with King's claims under the Lanham Act and New York law. King, who is the author of such best-selling horror thrillers as The Shining, Carrie and Salem's Lot, contended that Allied and New Line falsely designated him as the originator of the motion picture "The Lawnmower Man," which was produced by Allied and distributed in North America by New Line. The injunction, which prohibits any use of King's name "on or in connection with" the movie, encompasses two forms of credit to which King objected: (i) a possessory credit, describing the movie as "Stephen King's The Lawnmower Man," and (ii) a "based upon" credit, representing that the movie is "based upon" a short story by King.

Issue:

Did the district court err in its ruling that a false reference to the origin of a work, or a reference which, while not literally false, is misleading or likely to confuse, may form the basis of a claim under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act?

Answer:

No

Conclusion:

The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding that King was entitled to enjoin defendants' use of a possessory credit, but not their use of a "based upon" credit, because King had failed to establish a likelihood of success in his objections to the "based upon" credit. The district court correctly noted that a false reference to the origin of a work, or a reference which, while not literally false, is misleading or likely to confuse, may form the basis of a claim under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. The court perceived no error in the district court's conclusion that King is likely to succeed on the merits of his objection to the possessory credit. The district court was entirely entitled to conclude, from the testimony at the preliminary injunction hearing, that a possessory credit ordinarily is given to the producer, director or writer of the film; and that the credit at a minimum refers to an individual who had some involvement in, and/or gave approval to, the screenplay or movie itself. In contrast to other films for which he has been given a possessory credit, King had no involvement in, and gave no approval of, "The Lawnmower Man" screenplay or movie. Under the circumstances, therefore, the arguments advanced by Allied and New Line as to why the possessory credit is not false--that the other movie credits make clear that King was not the producer, director or writer of the film, and that King has in the past received a possessory credit where he merely approved in advance of the screenplay or movie--do not alter the conclusion that King is likely to succeed on his challenge to the possessory credit. Appellants also contend that King offered no evidence of public confusion in relation to the possessory credit. In any event, as the district court recognized, no evidence of public confusion is required where, as is the case with the possessory credit, the attribution is false on its face. Moreover, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting defendants' laches defense.