## Facts

- Robert M. Lamothe and Ronald D. Jones collaborated with Robinson L. Crosby to write two songs, “Scene of the Crime” and “I’m Insane.”
- After the original band dissolved, Crosby joined the rock band RATT and, with Juan Croucier, licensed and sublicensed the songs for commercial release.
- Atlantic Recording Corporation released a commercially successful RATT album in 1984 containing the two songs, and sheet music for the album’s songs was later published and distributed.
- The album and sheet music credited “I’m Insane” to Crosby alone and credited “Scene of the Crime” to Crosby and Croucier, omitting Lamothe and Jones.
- Lamothe and Jones sued alleging (1) a federal claim under Lanham Act § 43(a) for false designation of origin/false description based on the credits and marketing and (2) pendent state claims including accounting and defamation-related theories tied to misattribution.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants, concluding § 43(a) does not provide relief for omitted co-authors, and dismissed the state claims for lack of jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether Lanham Act § 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), permits co-authors omitted from album and sheet-music credits to state a claim for false designation of origin or false description/representation.
2. Whether, if a § 43(a) claim is viable, dismissal of related state claims solely because no federal claim existed was error.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgment for defendants and remanded.
- The court held that omitted co-authors may state a § 43(a) claim when they allege that credits and marketing materials falsely designate the creative source of the works and are likely to cause confusion in commerce.
- Because a federal claim was adequately alleged, the district court’s dismissal of the pendent state claims on the ground that no federal cause of action existed was improper.

## Legal Principles

- Lanham Act § 43(a) reaches false designations of origin and false descriptions or representations used in connection with goods in interstate commerce.
- “Origin” under § 43(a) is not limited to geographic source or classic trademark contexts; it can include the creative source of a work when authorship is represented in marketing and labeling.
- Misattribution or omission of authorship credits on commercially distributed goods can constitute actionable false designation/false description if it is likely to mislead consumers about who created the work.
- Lanham Act unfair-competition theories may address harms from misleading commercial representations even where copyright law also regulates rights in the underlying work.
- When a viable federal claim exists, a district court may not dismiss related state claims solely for want of a federal cause of action.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that co-authors whose names are omitted from songwriting credits may pursue a Lanham Act § 43(a) claim based on alleged false designation of origin or false description in commerce, and it reversed the district court’s contrary summary judgment and reinstated the related state claims for further proceedings.


Lamothe v. Atl. Recording Corp., 847 F.2d 1403 (9th Cir. 1988)