## Facts

- Dominic Murray, a U.K. costume designer, created a costume for a BBC television host that developed into the character “Mr. Blobby.”
- The BBC later commercially exploited Mr. Blobby, including merchandising that began in the United Kingdom.
- Murray asserted he owned rights in the character and alleged the BBC’s exploitation misappropriated his work and infringed his intellectual property.
- Murray alleged that BBC-related entities also began marketing or exploiting Mr. Blobby in the United States.
- Murray sued the BBC and its U.S.-incorporated subsidiary, BBC Lionheart Television International, in the Southern District of New York, asserting Lanham Act § 43(a) false designation of origin, copyright infringement, and unfair competition.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, contending the dispute was primarily British and should be litigated in the United Kingdom.

## Issues

1. Whether the United Kingdom was an available and adequate alternative forum for Murray’s claims despite asserted litigation-cost obstacles and potentially different remedies.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing on forum non conveniens where the complaint included U.S. trademark and copyright claims but the core relationship and conduct were centered in the United Kingdom.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the forum non conveniens dismissal.
- The court held the United Kingdom was an available and adequate alternative forum because defendants were amenable to suit there and the forum provided potential remedies.
- The court held private-interest factors favored the United Kingdom because key witnesses, documents, and events concerning creation and early exploitation of the character were largely located there, and compulsory process over U.K. witnesses would be difficult in New York.
- The court held public-interest factors favored the United Kingdom because the dispute was predominantly British, much of the governing law was likely English, and trying the case in New York risked substantial foreign-law complications.
- The court concluded the district court acted within its discretion; the reduced deference accorded to a foreign plaintiff’s forum choice supported dismissal.

## Legal Principles

- Forum non conveniens analysis requires (1) an available and adequate alternative forum and (2) a balance of private and public interest factors favoring the alternative forum.
- A foreign forum is generally adequate if defendants are amenable to process and the forum offers some remedy; less favorable law or procedure does not make the forum inadequate unless the remedy is effectively none.
- A plaintiff’s financial hardship litigating abroad may be considered but ordinarily does not, by itself, defeat adequacy.
- A foreign plaintiff’s choice of a U.S. forum receives reduced deference because it is less likely to reflect convenience.
- The presence of U.S. statutory intellectual property claims does not preclude dismissal when the dispute’s center of gravity and evidentiary base are abroad and foreign-law issues predominate.
- Appellate review of a forum non conveniens dismissal is for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld dismissal in favor of litigation in the United Kingdom because defendants were amenable to suit there, some remedy was available, and the private and public interest factors—especially the British location of evidence, witnesses, governing law, and governmental interest—outweighed Murray’s preference for a U.S. forum and his inclusion of U.S. trademark and copyright claims.


Murray v. British Broad. Corp., 81 F.3d 287 (2d Cir. 1996)