## Facts

- CBS owned a federal registration for the mark “Television City” used for television production and entertainment services at its Los Angeles production facility.
- CBS’s Los Angeles complex was known to the public through audience-attended tapings and related activities, and included ancillary operations such as a gift shop and an employee cafeteria.
- David and William Liederman planned to open a themed restaurant in New York City under the name “Television City.”
- CBS alleged that the restaurant’s use of the identical name would mislead consumers into believing the restaurant was affiliated with or sponsored by CBS.
- CBS sued for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution under the Lanham Act and New York law, and moved for a preliminary injunction to stop the restaurant from using the name.
- The defendants opposed the motion, disputing likely confusion and irreparable harm and pointing to equitable considerations, including CBS’s conduct and delay.
- The district court denied preliminary relief; the Second Circuit later affirmed on a narrow, fact-specific basis limited to a New York restaurant’s use of the name.

## Issues

1. Whether CBS showed a likelihood of confusion under the Polaroid factors between “Television City” as used for a Los Angeles television production facility and “Television City” as used for a New York City restaurant.
2. Whether CBS met the preliminary-injunction standard by showing irreparable harm and either (a) likelihood of success on the merits or (b) serious questions going to the merits with a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in its favor.

## Decision

- The district court denied CBS’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court found that, despite identical wording, the overall commercial context and distance between the parties’ services and markets did not support a likelihood of confusion.
- The court noted CBS’s mark was strong in television production but did not show comparable strength in restaurant services.
- The court found limited evidence supporting actual confusion or defendants’ bad faith.
- The court concluded CBS failed to show likely success on the merits and, on the record presented, failed to justify a finding of irreparable harm warranting preliminary relief.
- The Second Circuit affirmed substantially for the district court’s reasons and expressly limited its affirmance to the use of “Television City” for a restaurant in New York City, without deciding other commercial or geographic uses.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction in a trademark case requires a showing of irreparable harm and either likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions plus a balance of hardships favoring the movant.
- Likelihood of confusion is evaluated under the Polaroid factors, including strength of the mark, similarity, proximity of services, market overlap, actual confusion, and defendant intent.
- A mark may be strong within its core field yet have a narrower effective scope when asserted against a remote category of services.
- Identical marks do not, by themselves, establish likely confusion where the parties’ services, channels, and market context are meaningfully distinct.
- Appellate affirmance of preliminary-injunction rulings may be narrowly limited to the specific use and factual record before the court, leaving other applications unresolved.

## Conclusion

The court refused to preliminarily enjoin a New York restaurant’s use of “Television City” because CBS did not demonstrate likely consumer confusion between television production services and restaurant services, nor the irreparable harm required for extraordinary injunctive relief; the affirmance was expressly confined to that specific New York restaurant use.


CBS Inc. v. Liederman, 866 F. Supp. 763 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)