1

Both Ligotti’s complaint and Garofalo’s counterclaim make

other claims that neither asserts as a basis for his motion for

preliminary relief. In deciding the motions, then, the court has

not considered these additional claims. See MJM Prods. v. Kelley

Prods., Inc., 2003 DNH 159, 10. Furthermore, while Ligotti

argues a claim for copyright infringement in support of his

motion, his complaint does not contain any copyright claim; more

importantly, he has neither alleged nor provided evidence of any

registered copyrights. The court rules that Ligotti has not

shown a likelihood of success on any copyright theory. See 17

U.S.C. § 411(a); Torres-Negron v. J & N Records, LLC, 504 F.3d

151, 156 (1st Cir. 2007). 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joseph A. Ligotti, Jr. 

v. Civil No. 08-cv-119-JL

Opinion No. 2008 DNH 123

David Garofalo

O R D E R

Each of the parties seeks a preliminary injunction

preventing the other from using the yet-unregistered service

mark, “The Guy from Boston.” Alleging that his rights in the

mark are superior, the plaintiff, Joseph A. Ligotti, Jr.,

commenced this action, which claims, among other things, that the

continued use of the mark by the defendant, David Garofalo,

amounts to trademark infringement and unfair competition in

violation of § 43(a) the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and New

Hampshire law.1 Garofalo, however, claims that he has the

superior rights in “The Guy from Boston,” so it is Ligotti who is

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 1 of 59
2

At the hearing, the court also offered to make an interim

order governing the parties’ affairs until a decision could be

reached on their cross-motions, but they concluded that no such

order could fairly accommodate both sides’ interests.

3

In this decision, Judge Wyzanski wrote for the court, with

Judges Breyer and Coffin separately concurring in all respects

but one: instead of affirming the district court’s order on

different grounds, they voted to remand the case to “allow the

parties an opportunity to present further evidence and argument

in light of [the] opinions.” 761 F.2d at 75. In citing to the

First Circuit’s Bell decision, then, this court will not

differentiate further between the multiple opinions. 

2

engaged in trademark infringement and unfair competition by his

continued use of the mark.

The court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1331 (federal question) and 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction). 

The court first heard argument on the parties’ motions on April

3, which concluded with an order for additional briefing on the

issue of ownership of the mark in accordance with the standards

set forth in Bell v. Streetwise Records, Ltd., 640 F. Supp. 575

(D. Mass.) (Zobel, J.), aff’d without op., 787 F.2d 578 (1st Cir.

1986).2 The district court in Bell issued this opinion after the

First Circuit had vacated and remanded the initial order in the

case. 761 F.2d 67 (1st Cir. 1985).3

Together with this briefing, the parties also submitted

additional evidentiary materials, principally the competing

affidavits of Ligotti and Garafalo, that revealed sharp disputes

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 2 of 59
4

These exhibits included numerous videos of Ligotti’s

performances and appearances, which the court has since reviewed

in their entirety.

3

as to many potentially significant facts. To resolve these

disputes, the court held an evidentiary hearing on the motions

over May 19-20 and May 29-30, at which the court heard the live

testimony of Ligotti, Garafalo, and several other witnesses, and

received a number of exhibits.4

 Having considered this evidence,

and the parties’ accompanying arguments, the court grants

Ligotti’s motion in part and denies it in part, and denies

Garofalo’s cross-motion in its entirety.

I. Applicable Legal Standard

In deciding whether to grant a motion for a preliminary

injunction, a court must consider four factors: (1) the movant’s

likelihood of success on the merits of his claims; (2) the risk

of irreparable harm to the movant if the injunction is not

issued; (3) how that harm compares to any harm the defendant

faces if the injunction does issue, and (4) how granting or

denying injunctive relief would affect the public interest. See,

e.g., Naser Jewelers, Inc. v. City of Concord, 513 F.3d 27, 32

(1st Cir. 2008). While all of these factors must be considered,

“[t]he sine qua non of this four-part inquiry is likelihood of

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 3 of 59
4

success on the merits.” New Comm Wireless Servs. v. SprintCom,

Inc., 287 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2002). This is particularly true

when the movant seeks a preliminary injunction on the basis of a

trademark claim, since irreparable harm generally follows from

infringement, I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co., 163 F.3d 27,

33 (1st Cir. 1998), and “as a matter of public policy, trademarks

should be protected against infringing uses,” Borinquen Biscuit

Corp. v. M.V. Trading Corp., 443 F.3d 112, 115 (1st Cir. 2006). 

So, as more fully discussed infra, the resolution of the parties’

cross-motions depends on which of them is more likely to succeed

on his claim to ownership of “The Guy From Boston” mark.

II. Background

For purposes of the cross-motions, the court makes the

following findings of fact, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a), based on

the testimony and exhibits received at the evidentiary hearing,

as well as the materials submitted beforehand, see Asseo v. Pan

Am. Grain Co., 805 F.2d 23, 26 (1st Cir. 1986) (noting with

approval that “[a]ffidavits and other hearsay materials are often

received in preliminary injunction proceedings”); see also MJM

Prods., 2003 DNH 159, 2.

Garofalo owns The Two Guys Cigar Shop, which has retail

locations in the southern New Hampshire communities of Salem,

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 4 of 59
5

Nashua, and Seabrook and, as what Garofalo describes as “the

largest cigar retailer in the world,” also conducts a significant

business in mail and Internet orders. In early 2006, Garofalo

had the idea of promoting his business by using a character

called “The Guy from Boston,” based in large part on an existing

character called “The Kid from Brooklyn” who has appeared in a

series of videos on the Internet. Garofalo envisioned “The Guy

from Boston,” like “The Kid from Brooklyn,” as a champion of

individual rights and freedoms who would present his views by

“yelling and screaming” in front of an American flag in

performances to be viewed on the Internet, known as “rants.” 

Unlike “The Kid from Brooklyn,” however, “The Guy from Boston”

would rant in a Boston accent while holding a cigar, thus

promoting Garofalo’s Boston-area cigar business. Garofalo’s

first conception of the character did not include any thoughts

about his physical appearance, such as his ethnicity, build, or

dress.

Garofalo engaged a website designer with whom he had

previously worked, William Vining, to create an Internet site for

“The Guy from Boston,” and to register the Internet address

www.theguyfromboston.com. Garofalo also set about selecting

somebody to play the role of “The Guy from Boston.” After his

first choice turned down the opportunity, Garofalo offered it to

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 5 of 59
6

Ligotti, describing “The Guy from Boston” as a version of “The

Kid from Brooklyn” who would perform “rants” on the Internet as a

means of advertising Garofalo’s cigar business. Garofalo

proposed to compensate Ligotti in the form of half of the net

revenue; it is disputed, and ultimately irrelevant for present

purposes, whether this was meant as half of all revenue generated

by the character in any medium, or only the website. Because

Garofalo intended to pay the start-up expenses himself, he

explained, the arrangement would cost Ligotti nothing.

Though Ligotti had doubts about the success of the endeavor,

jokingly calling Garofalo “out of his mind,” he accepted the

offer. Ligotti understood that this resulted in a partnership as

to the website; Garofalo understood that he retained sole

ownership of the business, with the parties sharing net revenue

only. Nothing memorializing the agreement was put into writing.

Using a video camera he had purchased, Garofalo filmed

Ligotti performing six rants, entitled “Fourth of July,” “Press

‘1’ for English,” “Spank ‘em,” “Take This Pill,” “Cigars,” and

“Cell Phones” while positioned in front of an American flag

displayed in the lounge of Garofalo’s store. Having reviewed the

videos of these rants, the court credits Garofalo’s testimony

that Ligotti performed them by reading from scripts that Garofalo

had composed and written out on cue cards beforehand though, as

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 6 of 59
5

In an attempt to do so, Garofalo produced a baseball

bearing the catchphrase and the website address, which he had

ordered to sell through the website. But he could not recall, or

produce any evidence of, when he had placed the order, so it

could have been well after Ligotti originated the phrase by

spontaneously using it in the first rant, as he claimed. The

only third-party witness present for the filming of the first six

rants could not recall whether the phrase was in the scripts

prepared by Garofalo.

7

Garofalo acknowledged, Ligotti did not simply recite the scripts

verbatim. The court also credits Garofalo’s testimony that each

of these rants, save one, was shot in multiple takes; that

Garofalo gave Ligotti direction during the taping; and that,

after the taping, Garofalo edited the video of each rant. In

each of these six rants, Ligotti used some variant what the

parties have since come to identify as “The Guy from Boston”’s

catch phrase: “I’ve got the balls to say what you’re thinking.” 

In one of the many direct contradictions in the parties’

testimony, both Ligotti and Garofalo take credit for originating

that phrase, though neither was able to corroborate his claim.5

They also disputed who had the idea of how “The Guy from Boston”

should dress--he appears in either an open-collared shirt with a

heavy gold necklace or with a dark shirt and light tie--or,

indeed, whether Ligotti simply dressed that way to begin with. 

Vining posted these rants to the www.theguyfromboston.com 

website for viewing in early August. Garofalo also sent an eCase 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 7 of 59
6

“Minga!” as used in the rants, is an Italian expression of

exasperation or surprise, though it can have a more vulgar

meaning in other contexts. The myriad uses of ““Fuhgeddaboutit!”

were memorably illustrated in a monologue by the title character

in the film Donnie Brasco, starring Johnny Depp and Al Pacino,

which dramatized FBI Special Agent Joseph Pistone’s

autobiographical account, in his book of the same name, of his

undercover infiltration of New York’s Bonnano crime family. 

Indeed, Garofalo testified that, in the earlier rants, “The Guy

from Boston” embodied a sterotypical “gangster” style.

8

mail to a list of some 17,000 customers of his smoke shop

exhorting them to visit the site, and placed a photograph of “The

Guy from Boston” on the cover of the Two Guys mail-order cigar

catalog. Garofalo and Ligotti proceeded to shoot another rant

for the website each week, so that 28 rants on various topics,

e.g., “Express Line,” “Road Rage,” “Lottery Tickets,” appeared

there by the end of 2006. In these rants, as their titles

suggest, Ligotti generally expressed frustration at the problems

of everyday life, while playing to a stereotype of his ItalianAmerican ethnicity, gesticulating dramatically and using phrases

like “Minga!” and “Fuhgeddaboutit!,”6

 in addition to frequent

profanity. A few of the rants--“St. Anthony’s Feast,” “Sauce or

Gravy”--focused on eating, capitalizing on Ligotti’s substantial

girth; he weighs more than 400 pounds. The 2006 performances, in

addition to three “bonus” rants, were also compiled into a DVD,

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 8 of 59
7

There was no evidence as to sales of this DVD, if any.

9

“The Guy from Boston: The Very First Season,” assembled by

Garofalo and offered for sale through the website.7

In one of these “bonus” rants, “How It Began,” Ligotti

explains that he created “The Guy from Boston” as a way to

entertain his nephew while he was serving in the American armed

forces in Iraq. But Garofalo testified, without serious

challenge from Ligotti, that this account was a story concocted

to generate interest in “The Guy from Boston.” The court finds

that the same is true of the account, which Garofalo later gave

to third-party witnesses James Langan and Anthony Palmisano, that

Garofalo came up with the idea of “The Guy from Boston” from

observing Ligotti ranting and raving on various subjects to the

delight of his fellow customers during his visits to the cigar

store. The court credits Garofalo’s claim that he created “The

Guy from Boston” character without having Ligotti, or any

particular person aside from “The Kid from Brooklyn,” in mind. 

The story does not end there, however. Ligotti and Garofalo

continued to shoot rants and post them to the website on roughly

a weekly basis well into 2007. Under Garofalo’s direction, the

content of these performances focused less on Italian-American

stereotyping, and more on political issues, than had the 2006

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 9 of 59
10

rants, though eating continued to factor prominently. But these

materials were attracting relatively little attention. During

the first year of its operation, in fact, the website generated

only about $2,000 in sales of cigars and other merchandise, fees

for “personalized rants” ordered through the site, and revenue

from the placement of advertisements there, resulting in a net

loss of nearly $7,500 in the form of expenses paid solely by

Garofalo. Neither side presented evidence of traffic on the

website or any other indicia of its popularity before January

2008, when, according to Ligotti, the site received a peak of

eight or nine million hits before leveling off at around five or

six million hits per month thereafter. 

Meanwhile, by Garofalo’s own account, his role in creating

each rant diminished and Ligotti’s correspondingly increased as

the detailed scripts Garofalo had prepared for the earlier

performances were gradually replaced by lists of facts or “bullet

points” he had assembled on a particular topic, and Ligotti more

frequently made up his own lines on the spot. Garofalo,

unsurprisingly, retained hardly any of these written materials,

but a comparison of the few “scripts” that were introduced into

evidence to their respective rants--namely, “2nd Amendment,”

“Happy Halloween,” and “Shit”--demonstrates that Ligotti’s

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 10 of 59
8

Exceptions are “Illegal Immigrants,” in which Ligotti

essentially recites a number of purported statistics on the

subject compiled by Garofalo, and “Americans are Beautiful,” a

rant from the first season in which Ligotti essentially reads a

version of the spirited defense of the United States by Canadian

broadcaster Gordon Sinclair (which was widely re-circulated

following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001), revised

by Garofalo, as “America the Beautiful” plays in the background. 

9

Explaining that his practice was to erase all other takes

of each rant after selecting the version for the website,

Garofalo was unable to produce any alternative takes of rants at

the evidentiary hearing. A few days later, however, he submitted

a few takes of two rants, as well as numerous takes of a third,

he had since located on his computer. This evidence, which the

court received over Ligotti’s objection, is consistent with the

finding that rants filmed in 2007 generally required only a few

takes--the one rant for which Garofalo submitted numerous takes,

“Illegal Immigrants,” was unusual in that regard, according to

Garofalo’s own testimony.

11

performances followed the “scripts” in only the loosest sense.8

The generally unpolished nature of the post-2006 performances

further supports this point, as well as the related point that

fewer takes were required to produce a rant suitable for posting

on the website.9

The testimony of third-party witnesses also corroborates

this view. While Vining recalled having seen Ligotti perform two

rants by reading from cue cards prepared by Garofalo, and which

required several takes, both of these rants were among Ligotti’s

earliest: “Fat Chicks” and “Sauce or Gravy.” In contrast,

Langan and Palmisano, who did not witness the filming of rants

until 2007, testified that in those performances--“Screwed Up

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 11 of 59
10The “Chronicle” segments also briefly showed portions of

rants and other materials from “The Guy from Boston” website. 

12

Senators” and “Ho Ho Ho”--Ligotti referred to nothing more than

some notes prepared by Garofalo and required only a few takes. 

The court finds that, while Ligotti did not perform the rants for

the website “off the top of his head,” as he claims, he also did

not simply read from scripts prepared by Garofalo, as he claims. 

Instead, at least from the beginning of 2007 onward, the rants

consisted largely of impromptu performances by Ligotti on

subjects chosen by Garofalo, who also contributed elements used

in the rants, gave Ligotti direction, and edited them afterwards.

Despite the website’s meager revenues, “The Guy from Boston”

persona began attracting some attention from the local Boston

media by mid-2007. Ligotti--introduced as “Joe Ligotti, The Guy

from Boston”--appeared on “Chronicle,” a television news magazine

program, once in late June 2007 and again in late October 2007,

and a few times on “The Phantom Gourmet,” a food program

broadcast on both television and radio, around the same time. 

These segments were unscripted, with Garofalo’s involvement

generally limited to giving Ligotti a few ideas beforehand, e.g.,

suggesting which restaurants he should mention, and occasionally

sending an e-mail to a list of visitors to “The Guy from Boston”

website notifying them of the upcoming appearance.10 The

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 12 of 59
11The parties sharply disputed the circumstances of Rivera’s

hiring. Garofalo claimed that Ligotti hired Rivera without

Garofalo’s knowledge, but that once he found out about it he

“ratified” the hire. Ligotti claimed that he simply hired Rivera

over Garofalo’s objection. As explained infra, this dispute has

little relevance to the issues presented by the cross-motions. 

13

appearances came about through the efforts of Jason Rivera, a

Florida-based disc jockey whom Ligotti had retained as a manager

after appearing on his radio show.11 

In October 2007, Garofalo managed to convince a long-time

business associate, Michael Chiusano, to pay $20,000 for “The Guy

from Boston” to adopt one of Chiusano’s cigar brands as the

character’s exclusive smoke. When the potential for this deal

revealed itself, in late August 2007, Garofalo sent an e-mail to

Ligotti presenting his view of the “financial time line” of “The

Guy from Boston” endeavor. The e-mail stated, in relevant part:

The understanding made on July 17, 2006 between Joe

Ligotti and David Garofalo was the following: The Guy

from Boston and www.theguyfromboston.com was [sic]

owned by David Garofalo. Joe was to come on as the

talent aka The Guy From Boston and the arrangement was

that David would pay all expenses and it was to cost

Joe nothing. He would receive 50% of the net profits

after expenses after all money paid by David is paid

back. A 50/50 split on all profit after expenses.

Garofalo also claimed to have paid more than $7,000 in expenses

for which he had yet to be reimbursed, despite the more than

$3,000 earned by “The Guy from Boston,” mostly from sales of

merchandise on the website. As this e-mail suggests, Garofalo

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 13 of 59
12Ligotti did have access to a “Paypal” account that was set

up to receive payments on orders placed through the website, but

ended up taking money out of that account for his own personal

use--a transaction noted as a “bank transfer” in the e-mail from

Garofalo, who at that point had just discovered that the money

had gone missing. After receiving the e-mail, Ligotti admitted

to having taken the money, which was ultimately repaid.

14

was responsible for handling the financial affairs of “The Guy

from Boston” endeavor.12

In response to this message, Ligotti e-mailed Garofalo,

“Boy, this sounds official, huh?” to which Garofalo responded,

“This is just so everyone understands what is supposed to be

going on here . . . . Now is the time to say differently, before

the big break--not after.” Ligotti does not appear to have

responded further, and testified at the hearing, in fact, that he

did not recall any of the messages in the chain. And the

exchange was only slightly more memorable for Garofalo. Despite

Ligotti’s claim to superior trademark rights in “The Guy from

Boston” in both this litigation and a demand letter preceding it,

Garofalo did not cite or even produce the e-mails until the eve

of the evidentiary hearing. The same goes for a meeting among

Ligotti, Garofalo, Chiusano, and his brother, held just after the

e-mail exchange, where Garofalo claims to have asserted his

ownership of “The Guy from Boston” and the website and received

Ligotti’s assent; the meeting was not mentioned in Garofalo’s

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 14 of 59
13Moreover, Chiusano testified at the hearing that, based on

his recollection of the meeting, Ligotti seemed to believe that

he had a right of fifty percent ownership in the venture itself,

rather than just a right to fifty percent of its revenues.

14Aside from the parties’ recollection, the only evidence of

these appearances provided to the court was a videotape of two

“Your World” segments and three “Fox and Friends” segments

submitted by Ligotti, although he recalls having appeared on

these programs some fifteen times.

15

declarations or any other material he submitted prior to the

evidentiary hearing.13

In any event, Garofalo’s prediction of a “big break” was

soon fulfilled, though not necessarily in the way he envisioned

it. On Veterans Day 2007, “The Guy from Boston” was interviewed

on “Your World with Neil Cavuto,” a program on the Fox News

network (though Cavuto was apparently under the misimpression

that “The Guy from Boston” was the host of his own Internet radio

show). Using that moniker, either alone or in conjunction with

his real name, Ligotti went on to appear several more times on

“Your World,” as well as on another Fox News program, “Fox and

Friends,” throughout late fall 2007 and winter 2008.14

During these brief segments, the show’s hosts asked Ligotti

his thoughts on a variety of topics in the day’s news, which he

appears to have given extemporaneously, though with the benefit

of some research performed by Garofalo when the men knew the

topics ahead of time. Beyond providing this research, and

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 15 of 59
16

occasionally driving Ligotti to the tapings at the Fox studio in

Boston, Garofalo had no other involvement with Ligotti’s

appearances on Fox News. Ligotti’s comments during these

appearances generally track the political views expressed in the

rants, but in a considerably less abrasive tone, as he engages in

a humorous rapport with the programs’ hosts.

Right after his initial appearance on Fox News, “The Guy

from Boston” first appeared on local Fox affiliate in Boston, Fox

25, in an interview with the station’s political editor. Fox 25

then approached Ligotti about becoming a full-time employee,

leading to a series of meetings among its representatives,

Ligotti, and Garofalo. The station proposed that, as part of an

agreement to hire Ligotti for two years at a six-figure annual

salary, it would take control of the www.theguyfromboston.com

website. In response, Garofalo asserted that he owned both “The

Guy from Boston” name and the website, and refused to relinquish

them. Ligotti remained quiet--a decision he now attributes to

his reluctance to argue with Garofalo in front of Fox 25's

representatives--but confronted Garofalo after the meeting. 

Though the parties dispute the precise content of Garofalo’s

response, the court finds that, in essence, Garofalo told Ligotti

that they should await a more lucrative offer.

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 16 of 59
15Only three of these segments were submitted into evidence,

but many of them are available for viewing on the Fox 25 website,

www.myfoxboston.com (follow “Politics” hyperlink; then follow

“The Guy From Boston” hyperlink under “FOX25 Insiders” heading). 

Given the more lenient evidentiary standards applicable in

preliminary injunction proceedings, the court has taken judicial

notice of these materials. In a comment accompanying them, the

website explains that “Funnyman Joe Ligotti, better known as the

Guy from Boston, is not afraid to say what you’re thinking.” The

website also contains “The Guy from Boston’s Blog,” which

contains four brief comments of his own creation, in addition to

several responses from other users, posted during March 2008. 

17

None was forthcoming, but Ligotti did continue to appear as

“The Guy from Boston” on Fox 25, paid at the rate of a few

hundred dollars per appearance, without any further objection

from Garofalo. In these nearly twenty appearances,15 Ligotti

usually gives a report, comprised of on-location interactions and

interviews, on a lighthearted subject, e.g., recipes for a Super

Bowl party, or Valentine’s Day gift ideas. Garofalo does not

claim to have been involved in any of these appearances, which

are clearly unscripted.

In the apex of his rise to semi-celebrity status, Ligotti

appeared as a guest on “The Tonight Show” with Jay Leno on

January 17, 2008. Garofalo was not present for “The Tonight

Show” taping, but helped prepare Ligotti for his appearance,

including through communications with Rivera, who had accompanied

Ligotti to Los Angeles on Garofalo’s nickel. Most of these

instructions were highly general, e.g., Ligotti should appear

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 17 of 59
16There was considerable--and conflicting--testimony over

whether Ligotti had previously tried to hire Balboni; the court

considers that point irrelevant to the issues before it.

18

“very animated,” but a few related to the content of his

appearance, e.g., that he should “stay straight on

target” with his anti-immigrant, pro-military stance, and,

significantly, “push” the www.theguyfromboston.com website.

Aside from a brief retelling of the fictionalized account of

how he came to appear on the Internet by sending videos of rants

to his nephew in the Army, however, Ligotti did not mention the

website, Two Guys Smoke Shop, or even cigars--Garofalo had wanted

Ligotti to incorporate cigars into his appearance, but “Tonight

Show” producers nixed that idea. Instead, Ligotti provided a

series of humorous responses to Leno’s questions about food,

politics, and marriage. Leno did describe his guest--introduced

as “The Guy from Boston, Joe Ligotti,”--as “one of the most

outspoken personalities on the Internet,” referencing “his

website, theguyfromboston.com.” Traffic on the site peaked just

following Ligotti’s appearance on “The Tonight Show,” then

leveled off, as previously mentioned.

Hoping to take advantage of this surge in popularity,

Ligotti retained Fred Balboni, a talent manager and publicist

with whom he had a pre-existing social relationship.16 Balboni

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 18 of 59
19

soon discovered, by searching the United States Patent and

Trademark Office database, that--unbeknownst to Ligotti--Garofalo

had applied to register to himself “The Guy from Boston” as a

trademark for “entertainment services” on October 15, 2007. As a

specimen of the use of the mark in commerce, Garofalo submitted

an advertisement for “The Guy from Boston” brand cigars

consisting of a photograph of Ligotti and a caption explaining,

“The cigar chomping ‘The Guy from Boston’ is an Internet

celebrity with a lot of opinions.”

This discovery enraged Ligotti, who testified that he had

previously asked Garofalo about registering “The Guy from Boston”

trademark, only to be assured by him that it was not necessary

(though Garofalo said he did not recall this). In any event,

Garofalo’s application was preliminarily denied on a number of

bases, including that it did not specify the nature of the

entertainment services at issue and the mark was used in the

specimen as “a personal name that only identifies the name a

[sic] specific individual . . . it does not function as a service

mark to identify and distinguish applicant’s services from those

of others and to indicate their source.” Ligotti, at Balboni’s

suggestion, proceeded to register variants of the

“www.guyfromboston” domain name with suffixes besides “.com,”

including “.net,” and “.biz.” As it turned out, Garofalo had

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 19 of 59
20

registered the domain name “www.joeligotti.com” to himself on

January 26, 2008, just two weeks after Ligotti’s appearance on

“The Tonight Show.”

On March 17, Ligotti, accompanied by Balboni, met with

Garofalo to discuss the trademark registration, as well the

status of their business relationship. After learning that

Balboni was entitled to a percentage of “The Guy from Boston”’s

future earnings as Ligotti’s new manager, Garofalo responded that

Balboni’s percentage would have to come out of Ligotti’s half of

the profits, leaving Ligotti with little money for himself. This

led to a dispute over ownership of “The Guy from Boston,” with

Garofalo claiming that he had trademarked the name, only to have

Balboni demonstrate that the application had been denied--which

was news to Garofalo. The parties were unable to reach an

agreement for going forward with “The Guy from Boston” by the end

of the meeting, though they did make plans for Ligotti to film

some “personal rants” the next day to fill outstanding orders. 

Later that night, however, in a phone call to Ligotti,

Garofalo cancelled those plans and announced that he was

suspending operations. Garofalo also instructed Vining to shut

down the website until a different person could be found to

appear as “The Guy from Boston,” which happened the next day. 

Since then, nearly twenty rants featuring the new “Guy from

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 20 of 59
17These materials, as well as those on the current 

www.theguyfromboston.net site, were not submitted into evidence,

but the court has viewed them over the Internet, an approach to

which neither party objected when informed of it at the hearing.

21

Boston” have been posted on the www.theguyfromboston.com site,

while those featuring Ligotti have been removed.17 These rants

generally discuss politics and other mundane subjects in loud and

profane language, but appear much more heavily scripted than

Ligotti’s performances, at least those from 2007 onward. The new

“Guy from Boston” is also considerably svelter than Ligotti and

favors casual clothing over collared shirts and jewelry, but,

like Ligotti in his rants, always holds a cigar. Since Ligotti

was replaced as “The Guy from Boston” on the website, traffic has

fallen by at least half.

In the meantime, Ligotti has been operating his own website

at www.theguyfromboston.net. The site contains approximately

twenty rants, including some filmed by Garofalo and originally

posted on the www.theguyfromboston.com site, as well as links to

some of Ligotti’s appearances on television and in the print

media. Through his new site, Ligotti has received hundreds of emails expressing some form of confusion as to his replacement as

“The Guy from Boston” on the www.theguyfromboston.com site,

though some of these appear to be in response to Ligotti’s public

accounts of how that came to pass. Ligotti, as previously noted,

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 21 of 59
18Neither party argues that its claim under the New Hampshire

law of trademarks and unfair competition, as codified in § 358-

A:2, requires a different analysis from its claim under the

federal Lanham Act, so the court will not further discuss New

Hampshire trademark and unfair competition law separately.

22

also continues to refer to himself as “The Guy from Boston” in

his semi-regular appearances on Fox and elsewhere in the media.

III. Analysis 

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Each side seeks to enjoin the other’s continued use of “The

Guy from Boston” as trademark infringement and unfair competition

under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and New Hampshire law,

specifically, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 358-A:2, I-III. To succeed

on this claim under either federal or state law, a plaintiff must

show, first, that its mark is distinctive and, second, that the

defendant’s allegedly infringing use of the mark is likely to

cause confusion among consumers. See, e.g., Two Pesos, Inc. v.

Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 769 (1992); Auto Body

Specialists, Inc. v. Vallee, 127 N.H. 382, 385 (1985).18 For

purposes of their cross-motions, the parties agree that “The Guy

from Boston” is a distinctive mark and that consumer confusion

will likely result from their competing uses of it. What they

dispute is ownership of the mark, which of course is a necessary

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 22 of 59
23

prerequisite for relief on a trademark claim. See, e.g., DeCosta

v. Viacom Int’l, Inc., 981 F.2d 602, 605 (1st Cir. 1992).

Despite the parties’ agreement on the distinctiveness of

“The Guy from Boston” mark, that point requires some additional

discussion, for reasons that will become clear later in the

court’s analysis of the ownership issue. Marks fall into five

categories of distinctiveness: generic, descriptive, suggestive,

fanciful, and arbitrary. Colt Def. LLC v. Bushmaster Firearms,

Inc., 486 F.3d 701, 705 (1st Cir. 2007). The significance of

this categorization is that suggestive, arbitrary, and fanciful

marks are considered inherently distinctive, while a descriptive

mark becomes distinctive--and thus eligible for trademark

protection--only upon a showing of secondary meaning. Two Pesos,

505 U.S. at 769. “This showing requires the trademark holder to

establish that ‘in the minds of the public, the primary

significance of [the mark] is to identify the source of the

product rather than the product itself.’” Borinquen Biscuit, 443

F.3d at 116 (quoting Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456

U.S. 844, 851 n.11 (1982) (bracketing by the court)).

 Here, because the parties each claim to hold a valid

trademark in “The Guy from Boston,” they do not analyze whether

that validity proceeds from the inherently distinctive nature of

that phrase, or the secondary meaning it has acquired. Garofalo

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 23 of 59
19This import of this statement is somewhat unclear because,

as just discussed, suggestive marks--unlike descriptive ones--are

inherently distinctive and therefore need not acquire secondary

meaning to become protectable. Thus, “any reliance on the

doctrine of secondary meaning for this purpose is an implicit

confession that the mark was originally, and therefore may still

be, purely descriptive.” 3 Callman on Unfair Competition,

Trademarks and Monopolies § 18:10, at 18-176--18-177 (Louis

Altman, ed., 4th ed. 2004) (footnote omitted). In any event, for

the reasons discussed in the proceeding text, the court finds

that “The Guy from Boston,” in the manner it has been used by the

parties, is a descriptive mark, not a suggestive one. 

20Though “The Guy from Boston” was used in connection with

the sale of goods, principally cigars, the parties’ dispute, for

the moment at least, arises out of the use of the mark for

entertainment services only.

24

notes, however, that “[t]he parties do not dispute the fact that

THE GUY FROM BOSTON mark is a suggestive-descriptive mark that

has acquired secondary meaning,”19 and Ligotti has not disagreed. 

In accordance with this view, the court finds that “The Guy from

Boston,” as used to identify the parties’ entertainment services

in the form of the Internet-based rants and other media

appearances,20 is a descriptive mark.

“‘A term is suggestive if it requires imagination, thought

and perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of

[services]. A term is descriptive if it forthwith conveys an

immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics

of the [services].’” Equine Techs., Inc. v. Equitechnology,

Inc., 68 F.3d 542, 544 (1st Cir. 1995) (quoting Blinded Veterans

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 24 of 59
25

Ass’n v. Blinded Am. Veterans Found., 872 F.2d 1035, 1040 (D.C.

Cir. 1989)). “The descriptive-suggestive borderline is hardly a

clear one,” 2 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and

Unfair Competition § 11:66, at 11-147 (4th ed. 1992 & 2007

supp.), but the court believes that “The Guy from Boston” lies to

the descriptive side. The phrase conveys the salient

characteristics of the services, namely, the attitudes of a

“regular guy” from Boston, without demanding any imaginative leap

whatsoever. Cf. Attrezzi, LLC v. Maytag Corp., 436 F.3d 32, 38

(1st Cir. 2006) (upholding finding that Italian word for “tools,”

used to sell kitchen appliances, was suggestive because “the term

can easily be viewed as suggesting a similarity, not an identity,

between ordinary workman’s tools and electrical appliances”).

This finding draws additional support from the geographic

component of “The Guy from Boston” name. The category of

descriptive marks includes geographic designations that merely

identify a subset of the services’ attributes, i.e., their

location or origin. 2 McCarthy, supra, § 14:1, at 14-4--14-5;

see also Boston Beer Co. Ltd. P’ship v. Slesar Bros. Brewing Co.,

9 F.3d 175, 180 (1st Cir. 1993). “The Guy from Boston” serves

that purpose: not only did Garofalo choose that name as a way to

capitalize on his own ties to Boston, but the services marketed

under the name depend heavily on that locale for their style, in

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 25 of 59
26

particular the character’s accent, and their substance, which

often tends toward issues of local interest. This use of the

geographic designation in “The Guy from Boston” makes it a

geographically descriptive mark. See Mid-West Mgmt., Inc. v.

Capstar Radio Operating Co., No. 04-C-720, 2004 WL 2535404, at

*4-*5 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 21, 2004) (finding phrase “Madison’s

Progressive Talk,” as used in connection with radio broadcast

from Wisconsin city of the same name, to be descriptive).

Having decided on the proper characterization of the mark,

the court returns to the issue of ownership. “As between

conflicting claimants, it is well settled that the right to use

the same mark is based on priority of appropriation.” Blanchard

Importing & Distrib. Co. v. Charles Gilman & Son, Inc., 353 F.2d

400, 401 (1st Cir. 1965); see also Volkswagenwerk

Aktiengesellschaft v. Wheeler, 814 F.2d 812, 815 (1st Cir. 1987). 

These “conflicting claimants” are often two competitors in a

marketplace, each of whom claims to have started making

commercial use of the mark before the other. See, e.g.,

Blanchard Importing, 353 F.2d at 401. The question of ownership

can also arise, though, when an entity that had been using a

mark--such as a partnership or joint venture--dissolves. See 2

McCarthy, supra, § 16:42, at 16-68.3--16.68.4. There, “[w]hen

arguing parties are, in a sense, both responsible for the success

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 26 of 59
21The members of the group--Ricardo Bell, Michael Bivins,

Bobby Brown, Ronald DeVoe, and Ralph Tresvant--all went on to

prosper after New Edition eventually dissolved: Bell, Bivins,

and DeVoe formed Bell Biv Devoe, a popular group in its own

right, while Tresvant and Brown had successful solo careers. 

Starr, for his part, went on to manage another chart-topping

Boston-based teenaged musical group, New Kids on the Block. Joel

Whitburn, The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits 436-37 (4th ed.

1996). 

27

of a name, a court may find it difficult to decide which, in

fact, ‘owns’ the name; the temptation may be great to say ‘both

own it’ or try to ‘divide’ the name among them.” Bell, 761 F.2d

at 76. This difficult case is no exception. Yet the principal

purpose of trademark law is to protect consumers from confusion

as to the source of a product or service, see, e.g., I.P. Lund

Trading, 163 F.3d at 35-36, and this “public interest . . .

normally requires an exclusive award” of the mark to one party or

the other, Bell, 761 F.2d at 76.

Following this guidance from the circuit, the district court

in Bell, on remand, arrived at a test for assigning ownership of

a mark in these circumstances. 640 F. Supp. at 580. The

competing claimants in Bell were, on one hand, the teenaged

members of the popular Boston-based 1980s singing group New

Edition, and, on the other, their original manager, Maurice

Starr, whom the group was seeking to jettison in favor of new

representation.21 Id. at 577-79. Though most of the members had

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 27 of 59
28

entered into contracts recognizing that the “New Edition” name

belonged to a record company affiliated with Starr, they had

since exercised their right to disaffirm these agreements, which

were signed while the members were still minors. Id. at 578 &

n.10. Starr responded by replacing the original members of the

group with different performers and applying to register the “New

Edition” trademark for his own benefit. Id. at 579. 

 In preliminarily resolving the trademark dispute in favor of

the group’s original members, the district court relied on two

alternative rulings. Id. at 580-82. First, the court ruled that

the original members had made the prior appropriation of the mark

in intra-state commerce by performing as “New Edition” in and

around the Boston on at least twenty occasions before Starr

orchestrated the release of their first single in a broader

market, id. at 580; though Starr began working with the group

before that point, he had “played little if any role” in these

local performances, id. at 578.

Second, the court ruled that even in the absence of this

prior appropriation by the group’s original members, “they

nevertheless own the mark under the controlling standard of law”

applicable “in the case of joint endeavors, where prior ownership

by one of several claimants cannot be established.” Id. at 580. 

The court articulated this standard as “which party controls or

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 28 of 59
22Though the First Circuit did not expressly consider this

approach on the second appeal, which produced only a summary

affirmance, a number of courts and commentators have adopted or

endorsed the Bell test for ownership of a jointly held mark

following the fragmentation of the joint entity. See, e.g., C.V.

Starr & Co. v. Am. Int’l Group, Inc., No. 06 Civ. 2157, 2006 WL

29

determines the nature and quality of the goods which have been

marketed under the mark in question.” Id. (citing In re Polar

Music Int’l AB, 714 F.2d 1567, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). For

purposes of this inquiry, “the nature and quality of the goods”

are the characteristics associated with them, and therefore the

mark, by the consuming public. Id. at 581.

The test, then, subsumes two independent inquiries: “a

court must first identify that quality or characteristic for

which the [mark] is known by the public. It then may proceed to

the second step of the ownership inquiry, namely, who controls

that quality or characteristic.” Id. Applying this test, the

court ruled:

the quality which the mark New Edition identified is

first and foremost the five [original members] with

their distinctive personalities and style as

performers. The ‘goods’ therefore are the

entertainment services they provide. They and no one

else controlled the quality of those services. They

own the mark.

Id. at 582. This court, as previously noted, has ordered the

parties to argue their competing claims to “The Guy from Boston”

mark in accordance with Bell’s analysis.22

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 29 of 59
2627565, at *3-*4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2006); Liebowitz v.

Elsevier Sci. Ltd., 927 F. Supp. 688, 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); In re

Atl. Recording Corp., 747 N.Y.S.2d 889, 891-92 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.

2002); 2 McCarthy, supra, § 16:45, at 16-71--16-78; Mark

Traphagen & Robert D. Litowitz, The Song Remains the Same--But

Not Necessarily the Same, 39 Am. U. L. Rev. 975, 989-90 (1990);

accord Rick v. Buchansky, 609 F. Supp. 1522, 1537-38 (S.D.N.Y.

1985) (applying similar test in dispute between musical group’s

manager and its members decided contemporaneously with Bell). 

30

At the outset, however, Garofalo maintains that Bell’s test

for resolving ownership between former participants in a defunct

joint endeavor does not apply because the first commercial

appropriation of “The Guy from Boston” occurred solely as a

result of his efforts in conceiving the character, setting up the

website, writing, directing and editing the rants initially

posted there, and otherwise getting everything off the ground in

the summer of 2006. Garofalo thus likens himself to the original

members of New Edition, who, the Bell court ruled, had first

appropriated the mark through activities in which Starr’s

participation was tangential at best. 640 F. Supp. at 580. The

court generally accepts Garofalo’s view of the preeminence of his

role in the early going, but it does not necessarily follow that

he owns the mark as a result. 

While it is true that ownership of a mark inheres in the

party who makes the first commercial appropriation, see Blanchard

Importing, 353 F.2d at 401, “appropriation” equals “use” in this

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 30 of 59
23The district court in Bell, in contrast, appears to have

treated “New Edition” as an inherently distinctive mark belonging

to the party who made the first use of it as part of a present

plan of commercial appropriation. 640 F. Supp. at 579-80.

31

sense only when the mark is inherently distinctive, i.e.,

receives trademark protection without a showing of a secondary

meaning. 2 McCarthy, supra, § 16:34, at 16-56--16-57. “The Guy

from Boston,” as discussed supra, is not an inherently

distinctive mark, and Garofalo has not argued otherwise. So

“mere priority of use is insufficient. It is the party who first

achieved trademark significance in the mark through secondary

meaning who is the senior user.”23 2 McCarthy, supra, § 16:34,

at 16-56; see also, e.g., PaperCutter, Inc. v. Fay’s Drug Co.,

900 F.2d 558, 564 (2d Cir. 1990).

This rule usually requires a court to decide which of two

parallel uses of the same mark by competitors first achieved the

requisite level of significance. See, e.g., PaperCutter, 900

F.2d at 565. Here, the question arises in slightly different

circumstances--the parties agree that “The Guy from Boston” had

acquired secondary meaning by the time they started making

competing uses of the mark in March 2008--but the nature of the

inquiry is fundamentally the same. The court must decide whether

secondary meaning accrued while Garofalo was still making sole

use of the mark, or at some later point after Ligotti’s role had

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 31 of 59
24On remand, however, the district court found “that there is

only one relevant market here: the entertainment market,” in

which, as previously discussed, the original members of the group

had made the first commercial appropriation of “New Edition”

through a series of local performances. 640 F. Supp. at 580.

25The court acknowledges having accepted the parties’

stipulation that “The Guy from Boston” has secondary meaning. 

But this stipulation is not enough for Garofalo to succeed on his

theory that he owns the mark as a result of making the first

commercial appropriation, which he introduced in response to the

court’s order for the parties to argue their cases in accordance

32

increased such that “The Guy from Boston” had become a joint

endeavor. Indeed, the First Circuit in Bell appears to have

relied on the same analytical framework, ruling that, in the

first round of the proceedings, the original members “failed to

prove that their trade name had any secondary meaning in the

phonorecord world either locally or nationally” when they signed

on with Starr, 761 F.2d at 72--an event which, depending on the

evidence on remand, might have marked the start of a joint

endeavor, id. at 76.24

“‘Proof of secondary meaning entails vigorous evidentiary

requirements.’” Boston Beer, 9 F.3d at 181 (quoting Perini Corp.

v. Perini Constr., Inc., 915 F.2d 121, 125 (4th Cir. 1990)). The

party claiming secondary meaning bears this heavy burden, id.;

here, that is Garofalo, whose theory that he alone made the first

appropriation of “The Guy From Boston” requires a showing that

the mark acquired secondary meaning during that time.25 Cf.

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 32 of 59
with Bell. Again, that theory works only if (1) “The Guy from

Boston” is inherently distinctive, which it is not, or (2) the

mark achieved secondary meaning during the period of Garofalo’s

sole use.

26The only “consumers” of “The Guy from Boston” who testified

were Ligotti’s nephew, who received videos of a number of the

rants while stationed in Iraq, and Chiusano, who purchased

advertising on the www.theguyfromboston.com website. While each

suggested, at least obliquely, that he associated “The Guy from

Boston” with one of the parties or the other, that testimony

cannot carry much weight because each of the witnesses had prior

dealings with that party before being exposed to the mark. See

MJM Prods., 2003 DNH 159, 15-16 (finding multiple affidavits by

viewers of film, claiming they associated its title with

plaintiffs, to “constitute unpersuasive evidence of secondary

meaning” due to the affiants’ prior dealings with plaintiffs).

33

Bell, 761 F.2d at 71. Again, a mark achieves secondary meaning

when its primary significance to the public is to identify a

particular source of a service, rather than simply the service

itself. Borinquen Biscuit, 443 F.3d at 116. “The only direct

evidence probative of secondary meaning is customer surveys and

testimony of individual consumers.” Yankee Candle Co. v.

Bridgewater Candle Co., 259 F.3d 25, 43 (1st Cir. 2001). No

reliable evidence of that kind was introduced.26

 Secondary meaning may also be proven through circumstantial

evidence, including, but not necessarily limited to: (1) the

length and manner of the mark’s use, (2) the nature and extent of

its advertising and promotion, (3) the efforts made to promote a

conscious connection between the mark and the source of the

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 33 of 59
34

services, and (4) the services’ established place in the market. 

MJM Prods., 2003 DNH 159, 17 (citing Yankee Candle, 259 F.3d at

43-44, and I.P. Lund, 163 F.3d at 41). The circumstantial proof

on these points received in connection with the cross-motions for

injunctive relief demonstrates that “The Guy from Boston” did not

achieve secondary meaning--if at all--until well after the point

when, by any reasonable view of the evidence, the use of the mark

had become a joint effort between Ligotti and Garofalo.

Though Garofalo made efforts to promote “The Guy from

Boston” upon the appearance of the www.theguyfromboston.com site

in the summer of 2006, including a mass e-mail to his cigar store

customers and the placement of mark on the cover of his cigar

catalog, this advertising does not appear to have generated much

interest. In the entire first year of the site’s operation, in

fact, sales of merchandise, personalized rants, and advertising

totaled only $2,000, and there was no other evidence presented of

the site’s popularity during that time. “‘While evidence of 

. . . advertising and promotional activities may be relevant to

determining secondary meaning, the true test of secondary meaning

is the effectiveness of this effort to create it.’” Yankee

Candle, 259 F.3d at 44 (quoting Int’l Jensen, Inc. v. Metrosound

U.S.A., Inc., 4 F.3d 819, 824 (9th Cir. 1993)). Given the meager

success of “The Guy from Boston” during its inaugural year, the

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 34 of 59
27Even if the court could infer some level of traffic on the

website in 2006 or 2007 from other evidence in the record, that

number alone would fall short of establishing secondary meaning,

i.e., that those visitors associated “The Guy from Boston” with

the services offered on the site and no other source. “Mere use

of a website does not equal identification with a particular

provider.” DeGidio, 355 F.3d at 513. Indeed, in the act of

surfing the web by following a series of links or with the

assistance of a search engine, a user may visit a website without

necessarily learning its name, let alone whether there is a

particular source responsible for the content there. See XuanThao N. Nguyen & Jeffrey A. Maine, Taxing the New Intellectual

Property Right, 56 Hastings L.J. 1, 54-55 (2004-2005) (noting

that, in light of this reality, “[c]ourts often demand consumer

survey evidence demonstrating that Internet consumers perceive

the domain name as a source identifier, not as a description of

the products or services at the Web site”).

35

court concludes that Garofalo’s efforts were insufficient to

create secondary meaning in that period. See, e.g., DeGidio v.

W. Group Corp., 355 F.3d 506, 513 (6th Cir. 2004) (upholding

finding that “lawoffices.net” lacked secondary meaning without

evidence of consumer survey or market share and with evidence of

$2,500 in advertising costs and $200 in revenue); Dover Sports,

Inc. v. Hockey.com, Inc., No. 04-448, slip op. at 17-18 (D.N.H.

Jan. 28, 2005) (finding that “hockey.com” lacked secondary

meaning despite $700,000 in on-line sales from that site and

others, as well as advertising).27

“The Guy from Boston” did eventually attract some attention

from the mainstream media in November 2007, starting with

appearances on “Your World with Neil Cavuto” and culminating in

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 35 of 59
28In fact, Garofalo’s argument that he alone made the first

commercial appropriation of the mark identifies that point as the

appearance of the first rants on the website in the summer of

2006. That use alone comes nowhere near the exposure necessary

to confer secondary meaning on the mark. “No secondary meaning

emerges full-blown at the time a mark is adopted.” 3 Callman,

supra, § 20:29, at 20-214 (footnote omitted).

36

“The Tonight Show” segment, which increased traffic on the

website to eight or nine million hits in the month of January

2008. While it is perhaps doubtful that even this level of

exposure, in and of itself, conferred secondary meaning on “The

Guy from Boston” mark, the issue here is simply whether the mark

acquired secondary meaning during the period of sole use by

Garofalo.28 He has not shown a likelihood of success on his

claim that it did. And, by the fall of 2007, Garofalo was no

longer solely responsible for the use of “The Guy from Boston”

mark. He had little involvement in Ligotti’s television

appearances, and even the rants filmed at that time relied

heavily on Ligotti’s spontaneous contributions.

This is not to diminish Garofalo’s role in the success of

“The Guy from Boston” during this period; he was still

conceiving, directing, and editing the rants, providing research

and guidance for some of Ligotti’s other appearances, and,

significantly, running the business side of things. But the use

of “The Guy from Boston” mark had clearly become a joint endeavor

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 36 of 59
37

between the two men, just as the use of the “New Edition” mark

had become a joint endeavor between the performers and Starr by

the release of their first album. Bell, 640 F. Supp. at 578-79. 

If anything, the case for a joint endeavor in Bell was weaker

than the case for one here: Starr “ran the show” in recording

the group’s demo tape, which contained a song he had composed;

“expended considerable effort in attempting to sell it to a

recording company”; prevailed upon the performers to add a fifth

member; and “selected, produced, and for the most part” wrote the

group’s first album. Id. These contributions exceed, by any

measure, Garofalo’s contributions to “The Guy from Boston” when

it started to get widely noticed, thus approaching the secondary

meaning essential to its validity as a trademark. See Two Pesos,

505 U.S. at 769. 

Having found that the parties were engaged in a joint

endeavor at the time of the first effective commercial

appropriation of “The Guy from Boston,” the court moves on to

apply Bell’s test for deciding ownership of a mark under these

circumstances. The “court must first identify that quality or

characteristic for which the [mark] is known by the public.” Id.

at 581. Ligotti argues that these qualities align with his own

physical and personal traits, because he is “The Guy from Boston”

in the minds of the public. Garofalo argues that, to the

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 37 of 59
29Ligotti, as previously mentioned, came forward with a slew

of e-mails received via his “.net” site expressing confusion--and

in some cases outrage--over the fact that he had been replaced by

another “Guy from Boston” on the “.com” site. As this court

observed in MJM Productions, however, the hand-selected comments

of a group of fans is hardly a substitute for a consumer survey,

particularly when those comments may have been informed by a

party’s own publicized views on a pending trademark dispute. 

2003 DNH 103, 15-16; see also note 26, supra. 

30To similar effect is the trademark examiner’s comment, in

initially rejecting Garofalo’s attempt to register “The Guy from

Boston,” that “[t]he personal name of a performer or group is

registrable as a service mark only where the record shows that it

38

contrary, the public associates “The Guy from Boston” with the

content and style of the character’s performances, rather than

with Ligotti’s individual persona. As these positions suggest,

“[t]he issue to be resolved is whether the mark signifies

personalit[y], or style and quality regardless of personalit[y].” 

2 McCarthy, supra, § 16:45, at 16-72.

As just discussed, neither side has offered a survey or

other helpful consumer testimony to indicate directly what the

public thinks.29 Ligotti does observe that “the fewer the number

of performers in a group, the greater the likelihood that the

service mark or name of the group is identified with those

persons rather than with a style or quality of the group

regardless of personalities,” id. § 16:45, at 16-71, but that is

a self-described “general rule” that can serve only as the

beginning point for the court’s analysis.30 The court is thus

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 38 of 59
is used in a manner that would be perceived by consumers as

identifying the services in addition to identifying the person or

group” (citing In re Mancino, 219 U.S.P.Q. 1047, 1048 (T.T.A.B.

1983) and In re Carson, 197 U.S.P.Q. 554, 555 (T.T.A.B. 1977)).

39

left to draw inferences on this point from how the changing

nature of the services offered under the mark appear to have

affected the consumer response to it.

Again, the content of the rants conceived by Garofalo--which

he identifies as “patriotism, individual rights, anti-taxation,

pro-military, and pro-firefighters,” as well as “Boston versus

New York”--does not seem to have resonated with the public to the

degree that Ligotti’s unscripted performances in the mainstream

media have, at least on the record as it stands. Indeed, while

Ligotti addressed subjects similar to those in the rants during

some of his earlier television appearances, e.g., he chastised

Congress for not making English the country’s official language

both in his first “Your World” segment and on “The Tonight Show,”

the bulk of his work in that medium deals with a broader range of

issues in the news, including a number of decidedly apolitical

ones. Even the topics of the rants themselves vary more than

Garofalo acknowledges, dealing with everything from “American

Idol” to “Illegal Immigrants.” It follows that the public

associates the mark not with the particular subjects “The Guy

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 39 of 59
40

from Boston” discusses--that field is far too wide--but with his

particular way of discussing them.

Garofalo admits that the style of “The Guy from Boston”’s

performances is indeed one of the mark’s salient characteristics. 

But he defines that style in a broad sense--“a heavy Boston

accent; the use of a cigar as a prop; the loud, obnoxious

presentation of the scripted ideas; and the general dress of the

character, including the use of jewelry and a partially

unbuttoned shirt”--which could embrace nearly anyone playing the

character, not just Ligotti. This may have been how Garofalo

first envisioned “The Guy from Boston,” but it is not how the

public has come to view it.

Ligotti’s television appearances, at least beyond the first

“Your World” segments, are characterized by his lighthearted and

often self-effacing rapport with the interviewer or the camera. 

They are not “the loud, obnoxious presentation of scripted

ideas.” Nor do they regularly feature the cigar or any

recognizable style of dress (though Ligotti does always speak

with a distinct Boston accent). Moreover, many of “The Guy from

Boston” performances, including a substantial number of the

rants, rely explicitly on Ligotti’s girth and ethnic appearance

for their humor; also noteworthy, though not to the degree

Ligotti has urged, are the frequent references to “The Guy from

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 40 of 59
31In this regard, the court credits the testimony of James

Langan--the only disinterested witness with any professional

background in the television business who appeared at the

hearing--that “The Guy from Boston” caught his attention when he

saw him on television because of Ligotti, and “you couldn’t make

up Joe Ligotti.” 

41

Boston” by Ligotti’s name--an association on which Garofalo

attempted to capitalize by registering “www.joeligotti.com” to

himself. The court agrees with Ligotti that “it was personality,

not marketing, that led to the public’s intimacy with [the

mark].”31 Bell, 640 F. Supp. at 582.

Garofalo objects to this entire line of analysis, arguing

that “[p]ublic association . . . has minimal relevance in

determining trademark ownership” in the first place. Curiously,

he derives this proposition from Bell, where the district court

noted that Starr had “argued, and the Court of Appeals has

confirmed, that the ‘finding that the public associate[s] the

name NEW EDITION with the plaintiffs [does not compel] the

conclusion that the name belong[s] to the plaintiffs.’” 640 F.

Supp. at 581 (quoting 761 F.2d at 76). The district court went

on to clarify, however, that Starr and his co-defendants were

“wrong when they say that public association plays no part in

determining mark ownership. It is crucial in establishing just

what the mark has come to identify, i.e., what the ‘goods’ are.” 

Id. at 581 (citing 2 McCarthy, supra, § 16:14, at 16-35). And

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 41 of 59
42

the district court proceeded to decide that the original members

of the group owned its name because “the quality which the mark

New Edition identified was first and foremost [them] with their

distinctive personalities and style as performers.” Id. at 582. 

Bell flatly contradicts Garofalo’s view.

It is true, as the district court recognized in Bell, that a

ruling that one member of a former joint endeavor owns the mark

“does not necessarily follow” from a finding that the public

associates the mark with that member. Id. at 581. That was one

of the principal teachings of the concurring opinion on appeal by

Judges Breyer and Coffin, who remarked that

firms frequently develop ‘fictional names’ and hire

employees to play the named role. The firm’s express

purpose may be to have the public associate the

fictional name with the live employee; but that

association does not automatically give the employee

the right to the name. Presumably, for example, CBS,

not Richard Boone [who appeared in its series “Have

Gun, Will Travel”] owns the name ‘Paladin’ [the

character he played]. In the absence of a specific

contract, to decide who owns the name may require a

court to examine all the relevant circumstances,

including the history of the parties’ relation to each

other and their likely understandings in order to reach

an equitable decision. 

761 F.2d at 76 (citations omitted). Sensitivity to these

factors, however, does not require obliviousness to others,

including consumer attitudes on whom the mark has come to

represent; it is just that such evidence should not

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 42 of 59
43

“automatically” trigger an award of the mark to one party or the

other. See id. (criticizing district court’s original order for

“jump[ing] without explanation” from a finding of public

association to ownership). Indeed, “[c]ourts have traditionally

. . . weighed the public interest concerning trademarks against

the interest in contract enforcement.” T & T Mfg. Co. v. A. T.

Cross Co., 587 F.2d 533, 538 (1st Cir. 1978); see also 2

McCarthy, supra, § 16:40, at 16-68-16.68.1 (“The determination of

trademark joint ownership issues should be resolved by a

balancing of these two policies”). That public interest, again,

requires the protection of consumers from “the very ‘source’

confusion that legal trademark, and tradename, doctrine developed

to avoid.” Bell, 761 F.2d at 76.

Here, unlike in Bell, the parties never entered into a

contract allocating “The Guy from Boston” mark to either of them. 

In proposing the venture to Ligotti, Garofalo, by his own

admission, did not discuss ownership of the mark, but simply

“assumed” that he owned it. The parties’ initial conversations,

in fact, left Ligotti thinking they had become partners, while

Garofalo contemplated sole ownership of the business with

Ligotti’s interest limited to half of the net revenue.

The subject does not appear to have come up again until

Garofalo’s August 2007 e-mail claiming sole ownership of “The Guy

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 43 of 59
44

from Boston and www.theguyfromboston.com.” Whatever the

circumstances suggest Ligotti could have meant, either

objectively or subjectively, by his offhand response, this

exchange offers little insight into the parties’ understanding as

to ownership of the mark--to which, it should be noted, Garofalo

has asserted no contractual right in this litigation. Indeed,

there is no credible evidence that Garofalo intended to settle

ownership of the mark in this exchange; he was principally

concerned with his right to reimburse himself for his outstanding

costs, including the funds from the PayPal account depleted by

Ligotti, out of Chiusano’s $20,000 payment before giving Ligotti

his share. Similarly, though Garofalo later claimed ownership of

“The Guy from Boston” name at the parties’ meeting with Fox 25,

the circumstances suggest this was more of a tactical ploy to

force the station into making a better offer than an accurate

reflection of the parties’ agreement--particularly given

Garofalo’s acquiescence as Ligotti went on to use the name in his

repeated appearances for Fox 25. 

Given this state of affairs, “the history of the parties’

relation to each other and their likely understandings,” Bell,

761 F.2d at 72, offers little guidance as to ownership of the

mark and therefore little counterweight to its association with

Ligotti in the minds of the public. See 2 McCarthy, supra, §

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 44 of 59
45

16:44, at 16-170 (“Since the parties have not provided

contractually for trademark rights upon dissolution, the

‘contractual expectation’ policy should have no weight.”) This

is quite different from the situation that troubled the court of

appeals in Bell, where the original members of the group had

signed “employment contracts” relinquishing any rights to the

“New Edition” mark and confirming that it was “wholly owned” by

the record company. 761 F.2d at 70. While these agreements were

ultimately voided under Massachusetts law, they were nonetheless

a strong indicator of the parties’ intentions as to ownership of

the mark. The record here lacks any comparable evidence.

In a similar vein, Garofalo argues that “The Guy from

Boston” is a “concept character,” akin to what the district court

in Bell recognized as “a ‘concept group,’ whose name belongs to

the person or entity that conceived both concept and name.’” 640

F. Supp. at 581. Based on expert testimony presented in that

case, the court described “concept groups” as

formed mainly by independent record companies who,

perceiving an unfulfilled ‘niche’ in the entertainment

market, hire a group to promote their ‘concept,’ or

marketing idea. The record company owns the name and

controls the product.

Id. at 581 n.18 (emphasis added). Even assuming that the use of

“concept characters” in product marketing mirrors the use of

“concept groups” in the recording industry--unlike the court in

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 45 of 59
32Garofalo also argues that he controlled the content of “The

Guy from Boston” rants by writing, directing, and editing the

performances. As the court has already discussed, however, that

was true only at the beginning, before any association between

the public and any aspect of the performances has been

demonstrated; by the time that occurred, it was not content, but

style, that had caught the public’s interest.

46

Bell, this court heard no evidence on that point--Garofalo did

not control “The Guy from Boston” product to the degree necessary

to support his “concept character” theory.

Under Bell, once a court identifies what quality or

characteristic the public associates with a mark formerly used as

part of a joint enterprise, the inquiry proceeds to “who controls

that quality or characteristic.” 640 F. Supp. at 581. It

follows, from the court’s finding that the public associates “The

Guy from Boston” with Ligotti’s personality and physical

appearance, that Ligotti does. To paraphrase Judge Zobel yet

again, “the quality which the mark . . . identified was first and

foremost [Ligotti] with [his] distinctive personalit[y] and

style[] as [a] performer[] . . . . [He] and no one else

control[s] the quality of those services.” Id. at 582.

In arguing to the contrary, Garofalo relies heavily on his

asserted “right” to control all aspects of Ligotti’s performances

as “The Guy from Boston,” even his television appearances.32

Despite the fact that Garofalo played no role in the vast

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 46 of 59
33Even as a legal matter, Garofalo’s “right” to control

Ligotti’s performances, particularly in media outside of the

47

majority of these segments, he argues that he could have--by

firing Ligotti if he refused to play “The Guy from Boston” as

Garofalo envisioned the character. “Fortunately,” Garofalo

explains, he “never had a reason to exercise his right” because

he “never disagreed with the content of the . . . performances

(which was consistent with his concept of the character--although

toned down for television).”

But “the correct legal question in this context is not who

controlled whom, but who controlled the distinctive feature which

the mark identifies.” Bell, 640 F. Supp. at 581 n.17. A party’s

mere “authority” over this feature as a matter of contract or

agency law, if not actually used for that purpose, has no impact

on what the public comes to identify with the mark and therefore

has little relevance to “which party controls or determines the

nature and quality of the goods which have been marketed under

the mark in question.” Id. at 580 (internal quotation marks

omitted). As a practical matter, Garofalo had no way to

“control” what Ligotti said or how he acted during his television

appearances, as illustrated by Garofalo’s largely unsuccessful

attempt to turn the “Tonight Show” segment into a “plug-fest” for

the website or cigar business.33 Moreover, despite Garofalo’s

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 47 of 59
website, is unsettled, for reasons already discussed.

48

claim that he owned the “Guy from Boston” name and would not

allow Fox 25 to use it, Ligotti went on to make repeated

appearances there as “The Guy from Boston,” in segments Garofalo

had, for all intents and purposes, no way of controlling. See

Cardenas Corp. v. Johnson, No. 92-0249, 1992 WL 455226, at *2 (D.

Minn. May 7, 1992) (finding host of television show had proven

likelihood of success on merits of claim to its name, despite cohost’s registration of it as trademark, where host had previously

engaged in “actions consistent with ownership of the mark”).

 This lack of control undermines Garofalo’s reliance on Rick

v. Buchansky, where the court found that the manager of the

musical group “Vito and the Salutations,” rather than its

original members, owned the name. 609 F. Supp. at 1536. As an

initial matter, the manager in Rick, unlike Garofalo, held a

registered trademark in the name, triggering a presumption,

inapplicable here, that he owned it. Id. at 1531 (citing 15

U.S.C. § 1115(a)). In trying to overcome this presumption, the

group’s original members argued, first, that the manager had been

their “mere employee” who could have thus acquired nothing more

than a “temporary license” to use the mark. Id. at 1532. It was

only in rejecting this argument that the court relied on the

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 48 of 59
49

facts Garofalo cites in likening himself to the manager, e.g.,

that he formed the group, proposed the name, and handled the

group’s financial affairs, including paying its expenses. Id. at

1532. Rick therefore does not support Garofalo’s view that,

because he took on those responsibilities, he owns “The Guy from

Boston” mark regardless of his relative lack of control over the

qualities the public has come to associate with it.

Indeed, Rick relied on the same sort of public association

analysis as Bell in rejecting another one of the original

members’ arguments: that the manager “cannot claim ownership of

the mark ‘VITO AND THE SALUTATIONS’ because the public identifies

that mark with the performers themselves, and chiefly with Vito

Balsamo,” the group’s original lead singer. 609 F. Supp. at

1534-35. The court found, among other things, that the original

members had “not demonstrated that Balsamo developed any

particular notoriety during his tenure in that role,” such as

through “evidence that Balsamo or any other members of the group

received particular media attention . . . through exposure on

radio or on television.” Id. at 1535. As is clear by now, that

cannot be said of Ligotti. Rick is entirely consistent with the

court’s analysis of the ownership issue here.

 Returning to Garofalo’s “concept character” argument,

because Garofalo does not “control the product,” or at least

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 49 of 59
34The Bell court ultimately rejected this claim, finding, in

essence, that the concept had originated as much with the

original members of the group as with Starr. 640 F. Supp. at 581

n.18 (“They may have walked straight into Starr’s concept but, as

he conceded . . . , they seem to have had the same idea.”).

50

those aspects of the product the public has come to associate

with the mark, “The Guy from Boston” does not fit that

description. Bell, 640 F. Supp. at 581 n.18. Furthermore, the

characteristics essential to Garofalo’s “concept” of “The Guy

from Boston”--a Boston-based version of “The Kid from Brooklyn”

who would present libertarian views by “ranting” in front of an

American flag, cigar in hand--were no longer the mark’s

distinguishing features by the time it achieved public

recognition, as has been discussed. This is in contrast to Bell,

where Starr appears to have based his “concept group” claim on

the fact that “New Edition” had become famous while acting out

his idea--“essentially the Jackson Five updated by the addition

of modern elements like synthesizers and rap.”34 640 F. Supp. at

578 (parentheticals omitted). And, widening the focus from

somewhat elusive “concept group” theory presented to the district

court to more generalized equitable considerations endorsed by

the court of appeals in Bell, 761 F.2d at 76, this court does not

perceive any inherent unfairness in refusing ownership of a mark

to a party who came up with an idea for it, but later took a

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 50 of 59
51

backseat as another party substantially transformed the services

in question into those which consumers came to associate with it. 

This approach merely awards the mark to the party most

responsible for its success in gaining public recognition. 

A contrary approach, moreover, would essentially award

trademarks on ideas, limited only by the amorphous contours of

the creator’s concept, rather than by what it comes to signify to

the public. This is anathema to the principles of trademark law,

which awards rights on the basis of effective use, not “discovery

or invention.” 2 McCarthy, supra, § 16:11, at 16-23--16-24. 

Accordingly, “[a] business plan or a concept for a new trademark

does not in itself establish protectable trademark rights . . . . 

They are established only through prior use of the mark in the

marketplace,” id. at 16-25 (internal quotation marks and footnote

omitted), which must also be sufficient to create secondary

meaning if the mark is not inherently distinctive, id. § 16:34,

at 16-56. That was not accomplished by Garofalo’s concept for

“The Guy from Boston,” which, by his own account, did not

envision the personality, physical appearance, or ethnicity that

have become the character’s hallmarks. It might be a different

story if the public had come to know “The Guy from Boston” as

little more than a Boston version of “The Kid from Brooklyn,” as

Garofalo imagined; the significance of the mark would have been

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 51 of 59
35In making this point, Garofalo has repeatedly argued that,

if Ligotti owns the trademark in “The Guy from Boston,” Sean

Connery must own the trademark in “James Bond,” since he was the

first actor to play the character in film. So it is instructive

to note that, when the owners of the James Bond character as

manifested in a number of films sued to prevent the use of an

allegedly similar figure in a commercial, they proceeded under a

copyright, rather than a trademark, theory. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer,

Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 900 F. Supp. 1287 (C.D. Cal. 1995).

 

52

his concept, rather than Ligotti’s characterization. But that is

not how things turned out, and this court cannot blind itself to

that fact in deciding an issue of trademark ownership.

 Garofalo protests that, under this reasoning, “a

screenwriter or playwright would never be able to create a live

performance of his/her work without ceding ownership of the name

to the actors who played the role in the first production.” This

analogy, however, does Garofalo more harm than good. It gets its

intuitive appeal from the fact that characters in literary works

can be copyrighted, 1 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer

on Copyright § 2.12, at 2-178.25 (1978 & 2008 supp.), giving the

screenwriter or playwright in Garofalo’s example the right to the

character without regard to trademark law.35 But Garofalo holds

no copyright in “The Guy from Boston” character.

Even as a matter of trademark law, though, Garofalo’s

example does not call the wisdom of the Bell test into question. 

When the public becomes familiar with a character through its

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 52 of 59
36Contrary to Garofalo’s suggestion, the “first performance”

would not confer ownership of a trademark in the character’s name

to anyone, except in the unlikely event that the name was

inherently distinctive. See 1 Callman, supra, § 4:66, at 4-735.

53

appearance in a stage or screen production, it is likely to

associate that character with the things he or she says or does

during the production, which are necessarily a function of its

other elements, e.g., plot, setting, theme, and the like.36

These qualities are firmly within the author’s control, even

allowing for a wide degree of improvisation on the actor’s part. 

Under Bell, then, the author in Garofalo’s example would own the

trademark in the character’s name. Cf. 1 J. Thomas McCarthy, The

Rights of Publicity and Privacy § 4:70 (2d ed. 2000). But “The

Guy from Boston” did not achieve public recognition through

performances written and otherwise controlled by Garofalo--as

already discussed, consumers have come to know the character not

for what he says but for how he says it, and Garofalo has

exercised little if any control over that aspect of the services.

Based on the record as it stands, then, Garofalo is not like

the authors who gave us James Bond, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter,

or any of the other wildly popular fictional characters to whom

he attempts to liken “The Guy from Boston.” He is merely the

originator of an idea for “The Guy from Boston” which, though

certainly instrumental to its eventual success, did not come to

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 53 of 59
54

define it. For his contributions, Garofalo deserves credit--and

possibly even a share of all of Ligotti’s earnings as “The Guy

from Boston,” though the court has not yet been asked to decide

that issue--but they do not give him ownership of the mark. See

Compton v. Fifth Ave. Ass’n, Inc., 7 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1331 (M.D.

Fla. 1998) (“the fact that [a party] first conceived of the mark

. . . is irrelevant to his ownership of the mark”). The court

rules that Ligotti has shown the greater likelihood of success on

his claim to ownership of “The Guy from Boston” mark.

B. Balance of Harms and the Public Interest

As noted supra, when a party demonstrates his likely success

on the merits of a trademark claim, it is generally presumed that

he will suffer irreparable unless an injunction issues and that

doing so is in the public interest. See, e.g., Borinquen Biscuit

Corp., 443 F.3d at 115. Garofalo does not contest either of

these factors here. Nor does he argue that any harm he will

suffer if an injunction enters against him outweighs the harm

Ligotti will suffer if one does not. While Garofalo has

maintained the www.theguyfromboston.com website in Ligotti’s

absence, those efforts appear to have generated little if any

sales; the site, in its current form, has no advertising and does

not offer any merchandise. Ligotti, meanwhile, has continued to

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 54 of 59
55

appear as “The Guy from Boston” on the www.theguyfromboston.net

website as well as in the mainstream media, but the continued

operation of the “.com” site has distracted from those efforts,

as the e-mails he has received from confused fans suggest. The

court finds that the balance of harms tips in Ligotti’s favor.

C. Form of the Preliminary Injunction

Under Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a

court “may issue a preliminary injunction . . . only if the

movant gives security in an amount proper to pay the costs and

damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully

enjoined.” Nevertheless, “the posting of a bond is not a

jurisdictional prerequisite to the validity of a preliminary

injunction,” particularly where, as here, the enjoinee has not

asked the court to require any. Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 862

F.2d 890, 895-96 (1st Cir. 1988). In any event, given the

complete lack of any evidence of sales or other profit-generating

activity from the www.theguyfromboston.com website since Ligotti

was replaced, the court finds that Garofalo would suffer only

negligible, if any, “costs or damages” from the injunction. The

court therefore declines to require Ligotti to post security. 

See Hill Design, Inc. v. Hodgson, 2003 DNH 59, 29, rept. & rec.

adopted, No. 03-74 (D.N.H. Sept. 2, 2003); 13 James Wm. Moore et

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 55 of 59
56

al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 65.53, at 65-108 (3d ed. 1997 &

2007 supp.) (“Security may . . . be waived when granting

injunctive relief carries no risk of monetary loss to the party

enjoined or restrained.”) (footnote omitted).

The court nevertheless declines to issue the injunction

entirely in the form proposed by Ligotti. Ligotti asks this

court to order Garofalo to: (1) stop using the mark “The Guy

From Boston”, (2) restore the “www.theguyfromboston.com” website

to the state it was in before Ligotti was replaced, (3) refrain

from using that site to display any “Guy From Boston” besides

Ligotti, (4) “return or provide [Ligotti] with exact copies of

all video, DVD or other recordings of Ligotti’s performances,”

(5) preserve all relevant evidence, (6) “account for and

distribute to Ligotti on a monthly basis, any proceeds from the

website,” and (7) stop using the www.joeligotti.com website

(which Garofalo testified he has already done).

In the court’s view, requests (2), (4), and (6) do not

follow from its decision that Ligotti is more likely than

Garofalo to succeed on his claim to ownership of “The Guy from

Boston” mark. On this ruling, Garofalo’s use of the “.com”

website to showcase the work of Ligotti’s replacement amounts to

trademark infringement, see, e.g., Audi AG v. D’Amato, 469 F.3d

534, 546 (6th Cir. 2006), but Garofalo nevertheless continues to

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 56 of 59
57

own the domain name, cf. Sallen v. Corinthians Licenciamentos

LTDA, 273 F.3d 14, 19-20 (1st Cir. 2001) (distinguishing between

domain name registration and trademark rights), and Ligotti has

not shown a likelihood of success on any theory in support of his

motion for preliminary injunctive relief which would require

Garofalo, in essence, to relinquish that ownership interest. See

Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024, 1031 (9th Cir. 2003) (treating

domain name as intangible property under California law). 

Similarly, Ligotti has not shown a likelihood of success on

any claim to an ownership interest in the recordings of his “Guy

from Boston” performances as tangible goods. His likely success

on his trademark claim demands that Garofalo stop using those

recordings, but it does not prevent him from possessing them or

force him to copy them for Ligotti; when Garofalo created those

recordings, he was not engaged in an unauthorized use of “The Guy

from Boston” mark, but was working with Ligotti as part of their

joint endeavor to provide services under the name. Cf. AnheuserBusch, Inc. v. Caught-on-Bleu, Inc., 288 F. Supp. 2d 105, 126

(D.N.H. 2003) (ordering destruction of competitor’s goods bearing

infringing mark), aff’d, 105 Fed. Appx. 285 (1st Cir. 2004). In

short, the issue of who owns the personal property created as

part of “The Guy from Boston” venture is separate from the issue

of who owns “The Guy from Boston” mark, and was not presented to

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 57 of 59
37As previously noted, Ligotti did make a copyright claim,

but he holds no registered copyrights. See note 1, supra.

58

the court for resolution as part of the injunction proceedings.37

Garofalo must therefore preserve that property pending the

resolution of that dispute on the merits, as Ligotti requests,

and the parties are of course free to arrive at an agreement for

its temporary disposition in the interim. 

Finally, Ligotti’s claim to any profits from the “.net” site

(assuming, dubitante, that there have been any) can be fully

remedied by monetary relief and is therefore not an appropriate

subject for an injunction. See Charlesbank Equity Fund II v.

Blinds to Go, Inc., 370 F.3d 151, 162 (1st Cir. 2004).

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Ligotti’s motion for temporary

restraining order and preliminary injunction (document no. 2) is

GRANTED in part. Garofalo’s cross-motion to that effect

(document no. 7) is DENIED. The court hereby enters a

preliminary injunction incorporating paragraphs (1), (3), (5),

(7), and (9) of Ligotti’s “Proposed Temporary Restraining Order”

(document no. 2-4) to remain in effect pending resolution of this

case on the merits. The court will make every effort to achieve

that resolution expeditiously, but encourages the parties to

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 58 of 59
59

attempt an extrajudicial resolution of this matter in the

meantime.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: June 26, 2008

cc: Mark C. Rouvalis, Esq.

Eric M. Sommers, Esq.

Daniel E. Will, Esq.

Donald L. Smith, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JL Document 27 Filed 06/26/08 Page 59 of 59