## Facts

- Cue Publishing Company published *Cue Magazine*, a weekly New York City guide to dining and entertainment, using “Cue” as its principal mark and operating a “seal of approval” program for recommended establishments.
- Colgate-Palmolive Company manufactured consumer products and had registered “Cue” for dentifrice in 1939; it planned to introduce a new toothpaste branded “Cue” with a major national advertising campaign.
- Cue sued for injunctive relief under New York’s anti-dilution statute, alleging Colgate’s toothpaste use would (1) confuse consumers as to source or sponsorship, (2) tarnish the magazine’s reputation, and (3) dilute the distinctiveness and secondary meaning of “Cue” by blurring its association with the magazine.

## Issues

1. Whether Colgate’s use of “Cue” on toothpaste was likely to cause consumer confusion or “palming off” as to origin, sponsorship, or affiliation with *Cue Magazine*.
2. Whether use and advertising of “Cue” toothpaste would tarnish the goodwill and reputation associated with *Cue Magazine*.
3. Whether, under New York’s anti-dilution statute, use of “Cue” on a noncompeting product would dilute the distinctive quality or secondary meaning of Cue Publishing’s mark enough to warrant an injunction.

## Decision

- The court dismissed the complaint and denied injunctive relief.
- It found no likelihood of confusion, deception, or “palming off” given the dissimilarity of the goods and marketing channels.
- It rejected tarnishment, finding no credible showing that association with a toothpaste brand would harm the magazine’s reputation.
- It held the statutory dilution showing was insufficient, concluding the evidence did not establish a strong, exclusive secondary meaning for “Cue” or a serious risk that Colgate’s use would blur the magazine’s identity.
- Both parties were permitted to continue using “Cue” in their respective lines of business.

## Legal Principles

- Traditional trademark relief based on confusion requires proof of a likelihood of confusion (or related deception) as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation; markedly dissimilar goods and channels of trade weigh against such a finding.
- Tarnishment requires evidence that the defendant’s use is likely to harm the plaintiff’s reputation or goodwill; speculative or conclusory claims are inadequate.
- New York’s anti-dilution statute can apply even without competition or confusion, but relief generally requires a showing that the plaintiff’s mark is highly distinctive (including strong secondary meaning where relevant) and that the defendant’s use poses a substantial risk of blurring or impairment of the mark’s distinctive quality.
- Where products are remote from one another, a court may require a stronger evidentiary showing that the junior use will materially weaken the mark’s identifying power.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enjoin Colgate’s use of “Cue” for toothpaste because Cue Publishing did not prove likely confusion, reputational harm, or the level of distinctiveness and threatened blurring required for statutory dilution relief in the context of unrelated goods.


Cue Publ'g Co. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 45 Misc. 2d 161, 256 N.Y.S.2d 239 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1965)