## Facts

- The Boston Athletic Association (BAA) sponsors the annual Boston Marathon and owns a registered service mark in the words “Boston Marathon.”
- BAA, through its licensing agent, granted WBZ-TV an exclusive license to televise the event.
- WCVB-TV nonetheless televised the race by positioning cameras along the public streets that comprised the marathon route and used the words “Boston Marathon” in on-screen graphics before, during, and after its coverage.
- BAA, its licensing agent, and WBZ-TV asserted that WCVB-TV’s telecast and on-screen use of the event name infringed the service mark by suggesting authorization or “official” status.
- In federal district court, the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction barring WCVB-TV from televising the event and from using the “Boston Marathon” mark in connection with its telecast.
- The district court denied preliminary relief, and the plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction under the Lanham Act based on a likelihood that WCVB-TV’s telecast and on-screen use of “Boston Marathon” would confuse viewers about source, sponsorship, affiliation, or authorization.
2. Whether use of an event’s service mark to identify and report on a publicly observable event constitutes trademark use likely to function as a source identifier, as opposed to descriptive reference.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
- The court held the plaintiffs failed to show a sufficient likelihood of consumer confusion and therefore failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits required for preliminary injunctive relief.
- The court treated WCVB-TV’s use of “Boston Marathon” as identification of the event being covered rather than use of the mark to brand a product or imply “official” sponsorship.
- The court distinguished prior mark-enforcement scenarios involving merchandise, where consumers might believe goods are “official,” from broadcast coverage where multiple outlets commonly cover the same event.

## Legal Principles

- A trademark or service mark primarily serves as a source-identifying symbol; infringement requires a likelihood of consumer confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or approval.
- A preliminary injunction requires, among other factors, a showing of likely success on the merits; in trademark cases this commonly turns on likelihood of confusion.
- Trademark rights in an event name do not, without likely confusion, create a general right to control observation, reporting, or broadcasting of a public event taking place in public spaces.
- Use of an event name in coverage to identify the subject of reporting may be non-infringing where it does not reasonably imply authorization or “official” status.

## Conclusion

The court declined to use trademark law to convert ownership of the “Boston Marathon” mark into control over independent televised coverage of a public event, concluding that the plaintiffs did not show that WCVB-TV’s descriptive identification of the event was likely to confuse viewers about sponsorship or authorization.


WCVB-TV v. Bos. Athletic Ass’n, 926 F.2d 42 (1st Cir. 1991)