## Facts

- Tribune Co. operated a Chicago radio station and broadcast regularly to a large local audience after beginning transmissions in December 1925 on a wavelength of about 302.8 meters.
- At the start of Tribune’s operations, no nearby Chicago- or Illinois-area stations used a sufficiently close wavelength to interfere with Tribune’s broadcasts.
- Tribune invested substantial funds in developing its station and audience, and asserted that the public associated its broadcasts with its established wavelength.
- In September 1926, Oak Leaves Broadcasting Station, Inc., Coyne Electrical School, Inc., and an individual operator changed their station’s wavelength to the same as Tribune’s or to one close enough to cause interference.
- Tribune alleged serious interference with its programs and claimed resulting harm to its broadcasting operation and related business interests.
- Tribune filed an equity action seeking to enjoin defendants from using Tribune’s wavelength or any wavelength close enough to interfere; the court entered a temporary restraining order (TRO) granting that relief.
- Defendants moved to dissolve the TRO, arguing that no private party could hold an exclusive right in a radio wavelength and disputing the technical claim of interference (asserting separation by about 40 kilocycles).

## Issues

1. Whether, absent a specific statutory allocation scheme, a broadcaster’s prior use and substantial investment in a radio frequency can support equitable protection against later transmissions that cause interference.
2. Whether the defendants showed sufficient grounds to dissolve a TRO that barred use of the plaintiff’s frequency (or nearby frequencies) alleged to interfere with the plaintiff’s broadcasts.

## Decision

- The court denied defendants’ motion to dissolve the TRO.
- The court sustained injunctive protection for Tribune’s established use of the frequency, treating it as a protectable interest against later interfering entrants.
- The restraint continued to bar defendants from broadcasting on Tribune’s wavelength or on a sufficiently close wavelength that would interfere with Tribune’s signal.

## Legal Principles

- A prior broadcaster’s substantial, established use of a frequency, coupled with investment and reliance, may be protected by injunction against later interference even without a specific statute assigning exclusive frequency rights.
- Equity may restrain a competitor’s transmissions where interference threatens irreparable harm to an established operation and the balance of hardships favors the first user.
- Courts may analogize interference disputes over scarce technical resources to common-law priority-based protection (first-in-time use) when uncontrolled competition would produce conflict and measurable harm.

## Conclusion

The trial court maintained injunctive relief preventing a later broadcaster from transmitting on or near an established station’s frequency where the later use interfered with the prior station’s signal, recognizing an enforceable, priority-based interest grounded in common-law equitable principles.


Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broad. Station, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. 1926)