## Facts

- Judith Rossner authored the novel *Looking for Mr. Goodbar*, loosely inspired by a widely reported real-life murder in New York City.
- Paramount acquired motion picture rights to the novel’s title and produced the feature film adaptation; Rossner retained her literary rights.
- The Paramount–Rossner agreement provided an additional payment if Paramount produced a “sequel” to the film.
- A made-for-television movie, *Trackdown: Finding the Goodbar Killer*, was produced and broadcast, dramatizing the investigation and capture of the real-life killer rather than continuing Rossner’s fictional narrative.
- Rossner and a trustee sued CBS, the producer, and Paramount, challenging the use of “Goodbar” in the TV movie title and seeking damages and injunctive relief, including a requirement of disclaimers.
- The broadcast included a disclaimer stating the TV movie was not based on the book or feature film and that Rossner had no connection with it.

## Issues

1. Whether use of “Goodbar” in the title *Trackdown: Finding the Goodbar Killer* created a likelihood of confusion as to Rossner’s sponsorship or affiliation in violation of Lanham Act § 43(a) and New York unfair competition law.
2. Whether “Goodbar” had acquired a distinctive secondary meaning identifying Rossner such that defendants’ use violated New York’s anti-dilution statute.
3. Whether the TV movie constituted a “sequel” to the Paramount feature film under the parties’ contract, triggering the additional payment.

## Decision

- Judgment for defendants on all claims after a bench trial.
- No Lanham Act § 43(a) liability and no New York unfair competition liability because plaintiffs lacked exclusive rights in “Goodbar” and defendants’ use was not likely to confuse viewers about source or sponsorship.
- No New York anti-dilution liability because “Goodbar” did not have the distinctiveness and secondary meaning required for protection.
- No contract liability because the TV movie was not a “sequel” to the feature film within the agreement’s meaning.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff asserting false designation of origin based on a title must show a protectable designation and a likelihood of consumer confusion as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation.
- A term widely used in public discourse to describe real-world events may lack secondary meaning as a source identifier for a particular author or work.
- Clear contextual cues in a title and an express disclaimer may substantially reduce or eliminate likely confusion about sponsorship or authorization.
- New York dilution protection requires a distinctive mark or name; absent distinctiveness and secondary meaning, use by others is not actionable as dilution.
- A “sequel” clause in an entertainment contract is generally construed to require continuation of the original film’s fictional story or principal characters, not merely reuse of a related factual background.

## Conclusion

The court held that “Goodbar” functioned as a widely used reference to the underlying real-life murder rather than as a designation uniquely identifying Rossner, defeating claims for false designation, unfair competition, and dilution, and it further held that a TV dramatization of the investigation was not a contractual “sequel” to the feature film.


Rossner v. CBS, Inc., 612 F. Supp. 334 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)