Opinion ID: 610561
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trademark infringement by literary titles

Text: 40 Because of an author's significant First Amendment interest in choosing an appropriate title for his or her work, we have held that literary titles do not violate the Lanham Act unless the title has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever, or, if it has some artistic relevance, unless the title explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work. Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d at 999 (footnote omitted). Although Rogers arose in the context of a title using a celebrity's name, we have applied it to the literary title Cliffs Notes, a literary title apparently not containing the name of a real person, and certainly not of a celebrity. See Cliffs Notes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 886 F.2d 490, 495 (2d Cir.1989) ([T]he Rogers balancing approach is generally applicable to Lanham Act claims against works of artistic expression....). 41 In this case, there would seem little question that the title is of some artistic relevance to the Book. The question then is whether the title is misleading in the sense that it induces members of the public to believe the Book was prepared or otherwise authorized by TPP. 5 This determination must be made, in the first instance, by application of the venerable Polaroid factors. See Cliffs Notes, 886 F.2d at 495 n. 3. However, the finding of likelihood of confusion must be particularly compelling to outweigh the First Amendment interest recognized in Rogers. 42 Unfortunately, the District Court did not apply the Polaroid factors individually or determine whether the likelihood of confusion was so great as to overcome the presumption of Rogers. While we have occasionally endeavored to apply at least some of the Polaroid factors at the appellate level, see Orient Express Trading Co. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 842 F.2d 650, 654-55 (2d Cir.1988); Charles of the Ritz Group Ltd. v. Quality King Distributors, Inc., 832 F.2d 1317, 1320-23 (2d Cir.1987), we believe the better course in this case is a remand to allow the District Court the opportunity to fully examine the factors relevant to likelihood of confusion. 43 The need for careful application of the Polaroid factors, assessed in light of Rogers, is underscored by two complicating considerations. The first is PIL's placement of a disclaimer on both the front and rear covers of the Book. See Home Box Office, Inc. v. Showtime/The Movie Channel, Inc., 832 F.2d 1311, 1315-16 (2d Cir.1987); Consumers Union of United States, Inc. v. General Signal Corp., 724 F.2d 1044, 1053 (2d Cir.1983) (injunction not available where there is any possibility that an explanation or disclaimer will suffice), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823, 105 S.Ct. 100, 83 L.Ed.2d 45 (1984). Though the disclaimer partially blunts TPP's attack by alerting readers that the Book has not been licensed by a group of pertinent entities including Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. Television Network Group, it would have been far more effective had it simply stated that the publication has not been prepared, approved, or licensed by any entity that created or produced the well-known TV program Twin Peaks. Judge Martin expressed the view, without elaboration, that the disclaimer was not effective. 44 The second special consideration bearing on the Book's title concerns the wording and appearance of the title. The title not only uses the name Twin Peaks but precedes the name with the phrase Welcome to. The title thus copies a legend that appears on a roadside sign in the introduction sequence of each televised episode. Moreover, the book title is presented against a background that appears to be a wooden slab, apparently an attempt to evoke the wooden roadside sign. It is a fair question whether a title that might otherwise be permissible under Rogers violates the Lanham Act when displayed in a manner that conjures up a visual image prominently associated with the work bearing the mark that was copied. 45 These circumstances make a remand especially appropriate. 6 Since TPP concedes that the resolution of the state law unfair competition claim follows trademark infringement liability, we vacate the District Court's determination that PIL engaged in unfair competition as well.