## Facts

- Falcon International Corporation produced a 1964 film titled *The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald*, depicting a hypothetical criminal trial of Oswald.
- The film was publicized nationally, premiered to a large audience, drew additional viewers in subsequent weeks, and was later withdrawn from distribution after failing commercially.
- In 1976, Falcon learned that Charles Fries Productions and American Broadcasting Company planned a televised movie using the same title and depicting Oswald’s murder trial in a different format.
- Falcon notified ABC of Falcon’s prior film and intent to re-release it; Falcon then sold the film to Capital Films, which conducted test showings and sought distribution.
- Capital sued to stop ABC from broadcasting its film under the same title; injunctive relief was denied, and ABC aired its movie in September and October 1977.

## Issues

1. Whether Capital produced a genuine dispute of material fact for unfair competition based on use of the film title, including secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion (including “reverse confusion”).
2. Whether Capital produced a genuine dispute of material fact for common-law misappropriation under Fifth Circuit standards.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment before discovery was completed after Capital sought a continuance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f).

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that Capital’s evidence was insufficient to create a triable issue on title-based unfair competition and misappropriation.
- The court rejected Capital’s reliance on “reverse confusion” as an adequate substitute for evidence of actionable confusion under the governing title-misuse framework.
- The court held the district court abused its discretion by ruling on summary judgment prematurely while discovery was incomplete after the court’s actions induced reliance on additional time for discovery.
- The judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A title-based unfair-competition claim requires proof that (1) the title has acquired secondary meaning and (2) the defendant’s use creates a likelihood of confusion as to source.
- Under Fifth Circuit precedent, common-law misappropriation requires evidence that (1) the plaintiff invested substantial time, labor, and money in a product, (2) the defendant appropriated it at little or no cost, and (3) the appropriation caused injury to the plaintiff.
- A district court abuses its discretion when it grants summary judgment prematurely after inducing a party to believe it would have additional time to obtain discovery under Rule 56(f).

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit found Capital’s proof insufficient to establish likely source confusion or the elements of misappropriation based on the shared film title and related subject matter, but it reversed the summary judgment because the district court acted prematurely in the face of incomplete discovery after signaling that more time would be allowed.


Capital Films Corp. v. Charles Fries Prods., Inc., 628 F.2d 387 (5th Cir. 1980)