## Facts

- Jared Kotler and John Wozniak collaborated on music in New York and, according to Kotler, agreed to perform and record as “Marcy Playground,” with Kotler as producer and Jeff White (a financier) as executive producer.
- The parties formed Marcy Playground, Inc. and entered an exclusive recording contract with EMI‑America.
- Kotler alleged EMI resisted releasing the initial album unless Kotler stopped performing; Kotler ceased performing with the band.
- EMI and Wozniak allegedly agreed Kotler would receive co‑producer credit and that a Kotler/White production logo would appear on the album packaging.
- The album *Marcy Playground* was released in early 1997 with Kotler’s co‑producer credit and the logo, but initial sales were low.
- Capitol later assumed the recording contract and in September 1997 re‑released the album and the single “Sex and Candy” without Kotler’s producer credit and without the Kotler/White logo; the re‑release became commercially successful.
- After settlement discussions failed in March 1998, plaintiffs sued in April 1998 and sought a preliminary injunction to stop distribution unless credits were restored, asserting Lanham Act and contract-based theories.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs showed a threat of immediate and irreparable injury warranting preliminary injunctive relief based on alleged loss of producer credit and related market confusion.
2. Whether plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits (or sufficiently serious questions plus a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in their favor) on their Lanham Act and contract claims.
3. Whether the balance of hardships supported enjoining continued distribution of a successful, widely distributed album and single.

## Decision

- The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
- Plaintiffs failed to show immediate, irreparable harm, largely because they waited months after the creditless re‑release and their claimed reputational and market harms were speculative and substantially already incurred.
- Plaintiffs did not make a strong showing of likely success on the merits given sharply disputed facts concerning contributions, agreements, and the asserted basis for consumer confusion.
- The balance of hardships did not tip decidedly toward plaintiffs because an injunction risked substantial and difficult-to-measure disruption and economic harm to defendants’ ongoing marketing and distribution.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction requires either (a) likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm, or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the movant.
- Unexplained delay in seeking interlocutory relief can defeat a claim of immediate irreparable harm, including in cases where a presumption of irreparable injury might otherwise be argued.
- Alleged reputational or career injury must be concrete and non-speculative; asserted harm from omitted credits that is conjectural or already largely realized will not support emergency injunctive relief.
- Where liability depends on sharply contested facts (e.g., the existence and scope of credit agreements and the nature of claimed contributions), courts may decline to find likely success at the preliminary stage.
- Courts weigh heavily the disruption and economic harm that may result from enjoining distribution of a commercially successful product when monetary damages and later corrective measures may be available.

## Conclusion

The court refused to halt distribution of the album and single because plaintiffs did not show immediate irreparable harm, did not establish a strong likelihood of success amid disputed facts, and did not demonstrate that the equities favored disrupting a successful ongoing commercial release.


Marcy Playground, Inc. v. Capitol Records, Inc., 6 F. Supp. 2d 277 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)