## Facts

- After widely publicized events connected to the Amityville, New York house, George and Kathleen Lutz collaborated on a bestselling book, *The Amityville Horror*, describing their experiences.
- The Lutzes granted motion-picture rights in the first book to a film company and its assignees, while reserving to themselves the right to make sequels based on events occurring after they left the house.
- The Lutzes conducted extensive publicity for the book and announced plans for a sequel book and a sequel film.
- A successful film based on *The Amityville Horror* was released by an assignee of the film rights.
- The Lutzes commissioned and released a sequel book, *The Amityville Horror II*, which also achieved substantial commercial success.
- Defendants produced and distributed films titled *Amityville II: The Possession* and *Amityville 3-D*, which were not based on the Lutzes’ post-house experiences.
- Plaintiffs alleged that “Amityville,” particularly when paired with sequel indicators like “II” or “3-D,” had come to signify their works and reserved sequel rights, and that defendants’ titles misled the public into believing defendants’ films were authorized sequels, damaging plaintiffs’ ability to exploit their sequel rights.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint adequately alleged that “Amityville” (especially in sequel-form titles) had acquired secondary meaning identifying plaintiffs’ works or sponsorship.
2. Whether defendants’ use of *Amityville II: The Possession* and *Amityville 3-D* could constitute unfair competition by creating a likelihood of confusion or “palming off” as authorized sequels.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgments of dismissal entered after demurrers without leave to amend and judgment on the pleadings.
- The court held the complaint sufficiently alleged secondary meaning and a likelihood of consumer confusion to state an unfair competition claim.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with allowing the unfair competition theory to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Titles of literary works are not protected by copyright as such, but may be protected under unfair competition law when the title has acquired secondary meaning identifying a particular source or sponsorship.
- Secondary meaning is a fact-dependent inquiry; at the pleading stage, allegations of extensive sales, publicity, and public association may be enough to plead secondary meaning.
- Unfair competition turns on misrepresentation and likely confusion; using a similar title can be actionable when used in a manner likely to cause the public to believe the defendant’s work is the plaintiff’s work or an authorized continuation (including an authorized sequel).

## Conclusion

The court held that plaintiffs plausibly alleged that “Amityville” titles had acquired secondary meaning linked to their works and sequel rights and that defendants’ sequel-styled film titles could mislead consumers into believing the films were authorized sequels; dismissal on the pleadings was therefore improper.


Lutz v. De Laurentiis, 211 Cal. App. 3d 1317, 260 Cal. Rptr. 106 (Ct. App. 1989)