Opinion ID: 495430
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 3 This appeal involves two weekly publications with similar titles, both of which focus on marketing news. For purposes of clarity, we will refer to Centaur's publication as Marketing Week and A/S/M's as ADWEEK's Marketing Week. 1 Although both magazines are concerned with marketing, the emphasis of each is different. Marketing Week concentrates on the British market, though it does have a page devoted to marketing news in the United States, and ADWEEK's Marketing Week is geared towards the American market. 4 The orbits of these two magazines recently converged. Marketing Week has been distributed in the United States for about ten years, garnering only a slim circulation of 110 current subscribers. In contrast, its subscriber-base in the United Kingdom numbers 36,000. The genesis of ADWEEK's Marketing Week is somewhat complicated. A/S/M was formed in 1978. At that time it acquired three regional publications dealing with advertising, and changed their names to ADWEEK. Over the next several years, A/S/M acquired other publishing companies in different regions that also published advertising magazines. By 1986 it was publishing six regional editions of ADWEEK, all aimed towards advertising agency executives. In mid-1985, A/S/M began publishing a national marketing edition of ADWEEK. The national publication differed from the regional editions in that it emphasized attracting marketing executives in so-called client companies. The national marketing edition of ADWEEK had a subscription base of 10,000. The title of this new publication was ADWEEK National Marketing Edition. Beginning with the September 6, 1986 edition, A/S/M changed the title to ADWEEK's Marketing Week. This new publication came to Centaur's attention shortly thereafter, and the present litigation ensued. 5 This case commenced when Centaur sued A/S/M for declaratory and injunctive relief on December 15, 1986. The complaint alleged, inter alia, infringement of Centaur's unregistered trademark and a violation of New York's unfair competition law. After a December 23, 1986 hearing before the district court, the request for preliminary injunctive relief was denied. Centaur Communications, Ltd. v. A/S/M Communications, Inc., 649 F.Supp. 74 (S.D.N.Y.1986). 6 Waiving damages, Centaur then sought permanent injunctive relief. After a bench trial on the merits, the district court found both a Lanham Act and an unfair competition violation. Centaur Communications, Ltd. v. A/S/M Communications, Inc., 652 F.Supp. 1105 (S.D.N.Y.1987). As a consequence, it restrained A/S/M from displaying on its cover or in any promotional material, the mark Marketing Week either alone or with the word ADWEEK's occupying a significantly and materially lesser percentage of the entire logo. Id. at 1125. It further enjoined A/S/M from using the title Marketing Week without a license from Centaur. Id. at 1124. Appellant was also required to publish a prominent notice in its next three issues explaining why it had stopped using the title Marketing Week and stating that its publication was not connected to Centaur's. Id. at 1126. Finally, the district court awarded appellee attorneys' fees. Id. 7 On January 27, 1987, A/S/M moved in this Court for an order expediting the appeal and for a stay pending appeal. We expedited the appeal and stayed that portion of the decree which required that Adweek appear in comparable size lettering to and in conjunction with Marketing Week on its cover. Subject to certain conditions, A/S/M was permitted to utilize advertising and promotional materials without the word Adweek appearing in comparable size to and in connection with Marketing Week. We also stayed the requirement that appellant give notice to its subscribers. Finally, the sum of $10,000 was set as liquidated damages should the finding of infringement be affirmed on appeal. 8 The main issue raised is the correctness of the district court's determination that by its use of the term Marketing Week A/S/M violated Sec. 43(a) of the Lanham Act.