Source: http://www.leagle.com/decision/19901563737FSupp826_11414
Timestamp: 2014-09-22 06:10:08
Document Index: 352060435

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 107', '§ 107', '§ 107', '§ 107', '§ 107', '§ 32', '§ 1114', '§ 50', '§ 50', '§ 126', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 50']

TIN PAN APPLE, INC. v. MILLER BREWING CO., INC. | Leagle.com Home
Citing Case TIN PAN APPLE, INC. v. MILLER BREWING CO., INC.No. 88 Civ. 4085 (CSH). 737 F.Supp. 826 (1990) TIN PAN APPLE, INC., Sutra Records, Inc., Fools Prayer Music, Inc., and Mar Morales, Darren Robinson, and Damon Wimbley (together p/k/a the "Fat Boys"), Plaintiffs,
May 14, 1990. Richards & O'Neil, New York City, for plaintiffs; Jonathan Zavin, of counsel.Davis & Gilbert, New York City, for defendants; Howard J. Schwartz, Maribel Figueredo, Bruce Ginsberg, of counsel. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendants move under Rule 12(b)(6), F.R.Civ.P., to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In the alternative, defendants move under Rule 12(e) and (f) for a more definite statement and to strike certain allegations of plaintiffs' pleading.
Plaintiff Tin Pan Apple, Inc. is alleged to be the owner of the registered service mark FAT BOYS for performing services and a copyright owner of various FAT BOYS sound recordings. Plaintiff Sutra Records, Inc. is the copyright owner of various FAT BOYS sound recordings, including specific recordings listed in ¶ 16 of the amended complaint. Plaintiff Fools Prayer Music, Inc. is one of the copyright owners of and the administrator of various compositions the FAT BOYS perform, including all but one of the compositions listed in ¶ 16. Id. at ¶¶ 2-4.
Defendants move to dismiss all these claims under Rule 12(b)(6). I discuss them in the order in which they are pleaded.
I begin the analysis of defendants' motion to dismiss by recalling that on such a motion, the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint and all reasonable inferences therefrom must be considered as true. Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172, 174-75, 86 S.Ct. 347, 348-49, 15 L.Ed.2d 247 (1965); United States v. New Wrinkle, Inc., 342 U.S. 371, 376, 72 S.Ct. 350, 352, 96 L.Ed. 417 (1952). In short, on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim "the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader." Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1686, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). Thus construed, a complaint "should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) (footnote omitted).
Given these considerations, it is idle for defendants to argue on this motion that they have never "copied any of the copyrighted works in question." Reply Brief at 2. Plaintiffs allege that defendants copied parts of one or more of their copyrighted sound recordings, and composed and broadcast a melody substantially similar to one or more of plaintiff's compositions. The precise meaning of "one or more" may be explored on discovery, and plaintiff's have the burden of proof; but for purposes of the present motion, defendants concede copying the Fat Boys' particular expression of rap music.
Whatever legal meaning "parody" may have in other contexts, cf. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (1988) (application of First Amendment to magazine publisher's caricature of a public figure), in copyright law parody forms a part of the broader concept of fair use. Section 101 of the 1976 Copyright Act Revisions, 17 U.S.C. § 107, intended to be a codification of preexisting law, MCA, Inc. v. Wilson, 677 F.2d 180 (2d Cir.1981), provides in part that "the fair use of a copyrighted work ... for purposes such as criticism, comment, ... is not an infringement of copyright." The House Committee on the Judiciary reporting on the statute in H.Rep. No. 94-1476 (reprinted in West's U.S.C.A.1977 at 111-117), observes that the act gives "express statutory recognition for the first time" to the "judicial doctrine of fair use, one of the most important and well-established limitations on the exclusive right of copyright owners ..." A list of examples of fair use which the Committee derived from the Register's 1961 Report includes "use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied ..."
under the "fair use" doctrine, codified in 17 U.S.C. § 107(2) (Supp. V 1981), courts have allowed the taking of words or phrases when adapted for use as commentary or parody, see, e.g., Elsmere Music, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co., 623 F.2d 252 (2d Cir.1980) (per curiam); Berlin v. E.C. Publications, Inc., 329 F.2d 541 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 822, 85 S.Ct. 46, 13 L.Ed.2d 33 (1964).
In the area of parody as copyright infringement, Second Circuit case law focuses first upon the general question—is the defendant's work truly a parody?—and then considers the four particular factors set forth in § 107(1)-(4).
Thus in Elsmere Music, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co., 482 F.Supp. 741 (S.D.N. Y.), affirmed 623 F.2d 252 (2d Cir.1989), upon which the present defendants rely, the alleged infringement arose out of a skit on the television program "Saturday Night Live" which, in the court of appeals' phrase, "pok[ed] fun at New York City's public relations campaign and its theme song." 623 F.2d at 253. That fun was poked by a parody of the copyrighted song "I Love New York" called "I Love Sodom." The district court summarized the nature and thrust of the parody:
The song "I Love Sodom," as well as the sketch of which it was a part, was clearly an attempt by the writers and cast of SNL to satirize the way in which New York City has attempted to improve its somewhat tarnished image through the use of a slick advertising campaign.
482 F.Supp. at 745.
The District Court concluded, among other things, that the parody did not make more extensive use of appellant's song than was necessary to "conjure up" the original. 482 F.Supp. at 747. While we agree with this conclusion, we note that the concept of "conjuring up" an original came into the copyright law not as a limitation on how much of an original may be used, but as a recognition that a parody frequently needs to be more than a fleeting evocation of an original in order to make its humorous point. Columbia Pictures Corp. v. National Broadcasting Co., 137 F.Supp. 348, 354 (S.D. Cal.1955). A parody is entitled at least to "conjure up" the original. Even more extensive use would still be fair use, provided the parody builds upon the original, using the original as a known element of modern culture and contributing something new for humorous effect or commentary.
At the very least, where, as here, it is clear that the parody has neither the intent nor the effect of fulfilling the demand for the original, and where the parodist does not appropriate a greater amount of the original work than is necessary to "recall or conjure up" the object of his satire, a finding of infringement would be improper.
Original Appalachian Artworks v. Topps Chewing Gum, 642 F.Supp. 1031 (N.D.Ga.1986), reaches the same result, although within the context of the first element specified in § 107, namely, "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes ..." In Topps the defendant, a chewing gum manufacturer, began distributing "Garbage Pail Kids" stickers and chewing gum cards. Plaintiff, a marketer of dolls under the copyright and trademark "Cabbage Patch Kids", brought an action for copyright and trademark infringement. The defendant argued fair use under the Copyright Act on the basis of parody. The District Court rejected the parody defense because "the primary purpose behind defendant's parody is not an effort to make a social comment but is an attempt to make money." The court continued:
642 F.Supp. at 1034.
The Supreme Court in two recent cases has emphasized commercial purpose as a factor militating against fair use. Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 451, 104 S.Ct. 774, 793, 78 L.Ed.2d 574 (1984) ("... although every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively an unfair exploitation of the monopoly privilege that belongs to the owner of a copyright, noncommercial uses are a different matter.") (held, non-commercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airways was a fair use of copyrighted works and did not constitute copyright infringement); Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 562, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 2231, 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985) (quoting the above language from Sony and adding: "the crux of the profit/nonprofit distinction is not whether the sole motive of the use is monetary gain but whether the user stands to profit from exploitation of the copyrighted material without paying the customary price.") (article in The Nation using generous verbatim excerpts of President Ford's unpublished expression to lend authenticity to his account of his forthcoming memoirs constituted an arrogation of the right of first publication and was not a "fair use" sanctioned by § 107 of the Copyright Act).
An additional factor militating against fair use emerges from plaintiff's pleading. A court may consider "whether the paraphrasing and copying was done in good faith or with evasive motive." MCA, Inc. v. Wilson, supra, at 183. Plaintiffs allege that defendants Miller and its advertising agency had contacted plaintiffs Morales, Wimbley and Robinson to appear in such a commercial but they had declined. Subsequently defendants put together the commercial in suit, using look-alikes of the individual plaintiffs as background performers for Piscopo. Accepting as I must on this motion the truth of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the complaint's factual allegations, it requires no effort to infer that, having been rebuffed by plaintiffs for such a commercial, defendants Miller and Backer proceeded to copy them. The finders of the fact could equate such conduct with bad faith and evasive motive on defendants' part.
Defendants again rely upon the defense of parody. The Second Circuit recognizes parody as a defense to a Lanham Act claim. Indeed, in Cliffs Notes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing, Inc., 886 F.2d 490 (2d Cir.1989), the court upheld that defense and reversed the district court's preliminary injunction. The publisher of a college study guide, "Cliffs Notes", brought an action alleging that a cover of a parody, "Spy Notes", would give consumers the false impression that the parody was the study guide publisher's product. Defendant said that its product was a permissible parody. Judge Feinberg's opinion starts with the proposition "that parody is a form of artistic expression, protected by the First Amendment."1 886 F.2d at 493. At the same time, the court recognized that "[t]rademark protection is not lost simply because the allegedly infringing use is in connection with a work of artistic expression, ibid., citing and quoting Silverman v. CBS, Inc., 870 F.2d 40, 49 (2d Cir.), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 3219, 106 L.Ed.2d 569 (1989). The Second Circuit then said in Cliffs Notes:
Conflict between these two policies is inevitable in the context of parody, because the key stone of parody is imitation. It is hard to imagine, for example, a successful parody of Time magazine that did not reproduce Time's trademarked red border. A parody must convey two simultaneous—and contradictory —messages: that it is the original, but also that it is not the original and is instead a parody. To the extent that it does only the former but not the latter, it is not only a poor parody but also vulnerable under trademark law, since the customer will be confused.
A copyright claim is made out when defendant copies the protected work without the defense of fair use (such as parody). There is an additional element to a trademark claim. "The heart of a successful claim based upon §§ 32(1) and 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1) and 1125(a), and common law trademark infringement is the showing of likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of defendant's products." Standard & Poor's Corp. v. Commodity Exchange, 683 F.2d 704, 708 (2d Cir.1982). In this circuit courts consider six primary (although not exclusive) factors in deciding the issue of likelihood of confusion: (1) the strength of plaintiff's marks and name; (2) the similarity of plaintiff's and defendant's marks; (3) the proximity of plaintiff's and defendant's products; (4) evidence of actual confusion as to source or sponsorship; (5) sophistication of the defendant's audience; and (6) defendant's good or bad faith. Standard & Poor's Corp., supra, at 708; Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492, 495 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820, 82 S.Ct. 36, 7 L.Ed.2d 25 (1961).
On this aspect of the case at bar, Judge Motley's opinion in Allen v. National Video, Inc., 610 F.Supp. 612 (S.D.N.Y.1985), is instructive. The plaintiff was the celebrity Woody Allen. Defendant National, the owner of a nationally franchised video rental chain, hired defendant Ron Smith Celebrity Look-Alikes to find an individual closely resembling Allen (the defendant Boroff), who defendant then used in a pictorial advertisement. Judge Motley granted plaintiff summary judgment on his trademark claim and a nationwide injunction. In a "look-alike" case, the court in Allen equated the first factor to "the extent to which plaintiff has developed a favorable association for his mark in the public's mind"; "mark" in this context consisting of the plaintiff's name and likeness. The second element, similarity of the "marks", reflects the similarity of plaintiff to the individual or individuals used by defendant.
As to the third factor, proximity of the products, the court in Allen observed that while plaintiff did not own a video rental chain, he was involved in producing and distributing his own motion pictures, and was "strongly identified with movies in the public mind." Id. at 628. Judge Motley also noted that "[t]here is no requirement under the Act that the plaintiff and the defendant actually be in competition", ibid, citing James Burrough Ltd. v. Sign of the Beefeater, Inc., 540 F.2d 266 (7th Cir.1976).
Evidence of actual confusion, the fourth factor, "although highly probative of likelihood of confusion, is not required." Ibid.2 As to the fifth factor, sophistication of the defendant's audience, the court in Allen reasoned that the average customer of National Video, or reader of the magazine "Video Review" (in which defendants' advertisement appeared) were "likely to be comparatively sophisticated about movies ..." Nonetheless, the court concluded, "given the close resemblance between defendant Boroff's photograph and plaintiff, there is no reason to believe that the audience's relative sophistication eliminates all likelihood of confusion; at a cursory glance, many consumers, even sophisticated ones, are likely to be confused." Ibid.
Turning from this useful "look-alike" case to the one at bar, I must first observe that the present motion is not that of plaintiff for summary judgment (which Judge Motley granted in Allen). Rather, defendants move to dismiss the complaint; and the standard is that of Rule 12(b)(6). Under the familiar principles discussed supra, the first and second factors—the strength of the plaintiffs' "marks" and name and the similarity of plaintiffs' and defendants' marks—are sufficiently alleged in the amended complaint and must be taken as true. The third factor, proximity of the products, which necessarily implicates consideration of the relevant market, suggests some differences: presumably not all devotees of rap music also drink beer. But it seems safe to assume that many of them do, and this factor is satisfied if there is a sufficient "intersection" of the audience involved. Allen v. Men's World Outlet, Inc., 679 F.Supp. 360, 368 (S.D.N.Y.1988).
As to actual confusion, the purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not to seek out the sufficiency of evidence. In any event such evidence is not required to state a claim.
Plaintiff's trademark claims survive Rule 12(b)(6) challenge. Defendants' motion to dismiss these claims is denied.
The Rights of Privacy and Publicity Claims—"Look-Alikes"
Plaintiffs' sixth claim is based upon §§ 50 and 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law, whose provisions appear in the margin.3 In essence, the individual plaintiffs claim that after they refused to make a television commercial for Miller and its advertising agency, defendants "publicly advertised for three fat Black males to appear in a commercial," and that the males appearing in the commercial in suit (exclusive of Piscopo) "bear a striking resemblance to and are look-alikes of each of the three `fat Black males' constituting the Fat Boys." Amended Complaint ¶ 64.
The court granted Mrs. Onassis a preliminary injunction against publication of the ad, distinguishing Lombardo, supra, on the ground that the actor impersonating the plaintiff bandleader "did not physically resemble the plaintiff." Id. 472 N.Y.S.2d at 260. The court stated further:
610 F.Supp. at 623.
I conclude that for Rule 12(b)(6) purposes the amended complaint states a viable claim under §§ 50 and 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law. Defendants correctly observe that the present record includes no photographs, videos or other depictions of the individual plaintiffs from which an evaluation of physical resemblance may be made. Thus decision at this stage of the case does not preclude a motion by defendants for summary judgment on a more complete record. But the complaint's allegations of physical similarity, which I must accept as true, state a claim, given the cited cases' recognition that close resemblance in certain circumstances may violate the statute.
The Rights of Privacy and Publicity Claims—"Sound-Alikes"
In Lahr v. Adell Chemical Co., 300 F.2d 256 (1st Cir.1962), the First Circuit construed the New York statute in holding that defendant's copying of the comedian Bert Lahr's distinctive voice in a commercial featuring a cartoon duck did not state a claim. Judge Aldrich observed that the statute covered only commercial use of a party's "name, portrait or picture," adding: "The statute is very specific." Id. at 258. Plaintiffs at bar point out that Lahr did not involve combined use of look-alikes and sound-alikes, but that seems to me a distinction without a difference. It is still a legislative function to decide whether copying a party's voice violates the statute in any circumstance. Plaintiffs cite Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988), but the case does not assist them. True enough, Ford and its advertising agent asked the noted popular singer Bette Midler to make a commercial and, upon her refusal, hired a singer who sounded like her: conduct comparable to that alleged against defendants at bar. The commercial did not use Midler's name or picture, but the Ninth Circuit, construing California law, articulated a cause of action for commercial use of a sound-alike. The court of appeals derived from California statutes protecting use of a person's "name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness" comparable common law rights which by analogy also constituted "property rights," id. at 463 (emphasis added); defendants were held to have misappropriated Midler's property and thus committed a tort under California law. I do not presume to comment on the Ninth Circuit's exegesis of the law of another state. I hold only that the New York Civil Rights Law does not yet extend to sound-alikes.
It does not follow that resemblances in sound between the Fat Boys' performances and the commercial are not probative of any issues in the case. Similarity of sound in combination with similarity of appearance may militate in favor of plaintiffs' other claims, just as defendants would be assisted if the individuals appearing with Piscopo in the commercial looked like the Fat Boys but sounded like the Vienna Boys' Choir. But plaintiffs' sound-alike claim does not state a separate cause of action under the Civil Rights Law. Accordingly defendants' motion to dismiss that claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is granted.
Plaintiffs at bar do not pass the threshold inquiry. There is no basis from which the ordinary viewer of the commercial could draw an inference that the individual plaintiffs were underage and, in violation of the state statute, were endorsing or soliciting the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors. Assuming arguendo that the three look-alikes in the commercial so closely resembled plaintiffs that viewers thought they were watching plaintiffs, the commercial nowhere states the ages of the participants, and it is assuming too much of ordinary viewers that they knew plaintiffs were under twenty-one years of age. Moreover, the statute cited by plaintiffs as the underpinning for their defamation claims does not proscribe the conduct depicted in the commercial. § 126(2) and (3) of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law provide that a person under the age of twenty-one years is "forbidden to traffic in alcoholic beverages ..." § 3(30) provides: "`Traffic in' includes to manufacture and sell any alcoholic beverage at wholesale or retail." § 3(28) provides:
Rule 12(e) concerns the overall intelligibility of a pleading, not its evidentiary detail. Plaintiffs' allegations of copyright infringement are sufficiently precise to place defendants on notice of the nature of the claim. Defendants may develop additional details—for example, which musical compositions and sound recordings defendants are alleged to have infringed—through customary pre-trial discovery.
Defendants' motion is denied in all other respects.
FootNotes1. The effect of that proposition in the case at bar is problematical, since "[t]he Constitution ... accords a lesser protection to commercial speech than to other constitutionally guaranteed expression." Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 562-63, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 2349-50, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980). It is easier to characterize the parody involved in Cliff's Notes as "a form of artistic expression" than defendants' beer commercial at bar.2. That is the rule in respect of a demand for injunctive relief (as in Allen). Plaintiffs at bar seek, inter alia, injunctive relief. A trademark plaintiff must prove actual confusion to recover money damages. PPX Enterprises v. Audiofidelity Enterprises, 818 F.2d 266, 271 (2d Cir.1987).3. § 50 provides:
Any person whose name, portrait or picture is used within this state for advertising purposes or for the purpose of trade without the written consent first obtained as above provided may maintain an equitable action in the supreme court of this state against the person, firm or corporation so using his name, portrait or picture, to prevent and restrain the use thereof; and may also sue and recover damages for any injuries sustained by reason of such use and if the defendant shall have knowingly used such person's name, portrait or picture in such manner as is forbidden or declared to be unlawful by the last section, the jury, in its discretion, may award exemplary damages. Comment