## Facts

- Ken Follett, a novelist, challenged the planned U.S. publication of *The Gentlemen of 16 July* by Arbor House Publishing Co.
- The underlying work was a French-language nonfiction account of the 1976 Nice bank robbery written by three French journalists using the collective pseudonym “Rene Louis Maurice.”
- Follett’s role was to edit and substantially rewrite an English-language version derived from a translation; he improved style, organization, and narrative flow.
- The core narrative content—events, characters, and story—remained that of the French journalists’ original work.
- Arbor House proposed to market the book with the attribution “Ken Follett with Rene Louis Maurice,” placing Follett’s name prominently and “Rene Louis Maurice” in subordinate form.
- Follett and his U.S. publishers sought injunctive relief, alleging the proposed attribution and marketing would mislead consumers into believing Follett was the principal author and that the book resembled his fiction.
- The case was tried on a consolidated record following cross-motions for preliminary injunctions.

## Issues

1. Whether attributing *The Gentlemen of 16 July* to “Ken Follett with Rene Louis Maurice” constituted a false designation of origin or false representation under Lanham Act § 43(a) due to likely consumer confusion about principal authorship.
2. How to determine truthful “authorship” attribution when one party originates the underlying narrative and another substantially edits and rewrites a translated version.

## Decision

- The court held that the proposed attribution treating Follett as principal author was misleading and violated Lanham Act § 43(a).
- The court found that Follett’s contribution, though substantial, did not justify presenting him as the principal source of the work’s substance.
- The court ordered injunctive relief requiring modified attribution: equal credit to “Rene Louis Maurice” and “Ken Follett,” with “Rene Louis Maurice” listed first.
- The court required the book to be clearly designated as nonfiction.
- The court did not bar publication; it limited relief to corrective labeling and marketing to prevent deception.

## Legal Principles

- Lanham Act § 43(a) reaches misleading representations about the “origin” of a product, including misleading identification of the principal creator of a literary work when likely to cause consumer confusion.
- In evaluating authorship claims for attribution purposes, the source of original narrative content may outweigh substantial stylistic, editorial, and structural revisions.
- Likelihood of confusion may be established by proposed packaging and promotion that would lead ordinary consumers to believe a well-known writer is the primary creator when the underlying work originates with others.
- Equitable relief under § 43(a) may be tailored to require truthful attribution and accurate descriptors rather than prohibiting distribution.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that prominently crediting Follett as principal author of a work whose essential narrative originated with other writers would likely mislead consumers, so it enjoined the misleading attribution and required equal, ordered authorship credit and a clear nonfiction designation.


Follett v. New Am. Libr., Inc., 497 F. Supp. 304 (S.D.N.Y. 1980)