## Facts

- Miramax developed and distributed the horror film *Scream*.
- Columbia Pictures Entertainment and Mandalay Entertainment produced and distributed *I Know What You Did Last Summer* (*Summer*).
- Defendants marketed *Summer* using advertisements prominently stating the film was “from the creator of *Scream*.”
- The only creative connection between the two films was that the same screenwriter, Kevin Williamson, wrote both screenplays.
- Miramax alleged the advertising implied involvement by *Scream*’s director, Wes Craven, and suggested *Summer* originated from the same source as *Scream*.
- Miramax submitted consumer survey evidence indicating many viewers believed *Summer* was a *Scream* sequel or was directed by Craven, while very few understood the reference to mean the shared screenwriter.
- After Miramax objected, defendants withdrew the challenged advertising in the United States but continued it in foreign markets.
- Miramax sought a preliminary injunction to stop the challenged campaign worldwide.

## Issues

1. Whether advertising *Summer* as “from the creator of *Scream*” constituted a false or misleading representation likely to cause confusion as to origin, sponsorship, or approval under Lanham Act § 43(a) and related common-law unfair competition.
2. Whether Miramax satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction, including irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the merits, under the heightened standard applicable when relief alters the status quo.

## Decision

- The court granted Miramax’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court found Miramax showed a likelihood of success that the “creator of *Scream*” campaign was misleading and likely to cause consumer confusion about source or affiliation.
- The court found irreparable harm based on threatened injury to Miramax’s reputation and goodwill associated with *Scream*.
- The court concluded the equities supported enjoining continued use of the misleading advertising, including beyond the United States given defendants’ continued foreign use.

## Legal Principles

- Lanham Act § 43(a) prohibits false or misleading descriptions or representations of fact in commercial promotion that are likely to cause confusion about the origin, sponsorship, or approval of goods or services.
- Advertising may be actionable if it is misleading in context, even if it has a literal truth, when it creates a false impression of source or affiliation.
- Consumer survey evidence may support a finding that promotional statements are misleading and likely to cause confusion at the preliminary-injunction stage.
- In Lanham Act cases, a showing of likely confusion may support a finding of irreparable harm where reputation and goodwill are threatened and damages are difficult to measure.
- A preliminary injunction requires irreparable harm and either likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions plus a balance of hardships favoring the movant; a clearer showing is required when the injunction would alter the status quo.

## Conclusion

The court enjoined defendants’ “from the creator of *Scream*” advertising for *I Know What You Did Last Summer* because evidence, including consumer surveys, showed the campaign likely misled consumers into believing the film shared *Scream*’s source or key creative involvement, creating likely confusion and irreparable harm to Miramax’s goodwill.


Miramax Films Corp. v. Columbia Pictures Ent., Inc., 996 F. Supp. 294 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)