## Facts

- Plaintiffs operated comedy nightclubs under the name “The Comic Strip” in New York (since 1976) and Florida (since 1979).
- Plaintiffs’ name was not a federally registered trademark.
- Defendant Fox began broadcasting a comedy entertainment program titled “L.A. Comic Strip,” later expanding to multiple cities (including New York) and renaming it “Comic Strip Live.”
- Plaintiffs alleged Fox’s program title would mislead viewers into believing the show originated from, or was affiliated with, plaintiffs’ clubs.
- Plaintiffs sued for false designation of origin under Lanham Act § 43(a) and related New York statutory and common-law unfair competition, and sought a preliminary injunction barring Fox from using “Comic Strip” in connection with the show.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs showed irreparable harm and entitlement to a preliminary injunction under Second Circuit standards.
2. Whether plaintiffs’ unregistered “The Comic Strip” mark was protectable under Lanham Act § 43(a) through secondary meaning and a likelihood of consumer confusion.
3. Whether plaintiffs demonstrated sufficient merit and equities to obtain preliminary relief on related New York unfair-competition claims.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court found plaintiffs made the required showing of irreparable harm.
- The court concluded plaintiffs demonstrated at least a likelihood of success (or sufficiently serious questions plus a favorable balance of hardships) on the Lanham Act and state-law claims.
- The injunction restrained Fox from using “Comic Strip” (including “Comic Strip Live” and similar wording) in connection with its television program pending further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction requires irreparable harm and either (1) likelihood of success on the merits or (2) serious questions going to the merits plus a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the movant.
- An unregistered mark is protectable under Lanham Act § 43(a) if the plaintiff shows (1) secondary meaning and (2) a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation.
- Secondary meaning exists when the consuming public primarily understands a term to identify a particular source rather than the service itself.
- Likelihood of confusion may be shown where the defendant’s title and presentation create the overall impression that its entertainment program originates from, or is connected to, the plaintiff’s similarly named venue.
- In trademark and unfair-competition disputes, a likelihood of confusion supports a finding of irreparable harm because confusion threatens goodwill and the owner’s control over reputation.

## Conclusion

The court preliminarily barred Fox from using “Comic Strip” in its program title because plaintiffs’ longstanding use supported secondary meaning and Fox’s similar title for closely related entertainment services was likely to confuse viewers, causing irreparable injury to plaintiffs’ goodwill and justifying injunctive relief under Lanham Act § 43(a) and related New York law.


Comic Strip, Inc. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 710 F. Supp. 976 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)