National Lampoon, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Co.
2d Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2007ITC Ltd. v. Punchgini, Inc. 2d Cir.
- 2000Havana Club Holding, S.A. v. Galleon S.A. 2d Cir.
- 1999Havana Club Holding, S.A. v. Galleon, S.A. S.D.N.Y.
- 1999Boulé v. Hutton S.D.N.Y.
- 1993Stern's Miracle-Gro Products, Inc. v. Shark Products, Inc. S.D.N.Y.
- 1993Kraft General Foods, Inc. v. Allied Old English, Inc. S.D.N.Y.
- 1992Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C., Inc. E.D.N.Y.
- 1992Omm Art Creations Ltd. v. Simcha International, Inc. E.D.N.Y.
- 1992Windows User, Inc. v. Reed Business Publishing Ltd. S.D.N.Y.
- 1992IMAF, S.P.A. v. J.C. Penney Co. S.D.N.Y.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
The NATIONAL LAMPOON, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Judges
- Before LUMBARD and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, District Judge.
Attorneys
- Gordon T. King, New York City (Coudert Brothers, Carleton G. Eldridge, Jr., New York City, on the brief), for defendants-appellants.
- Harry I. Rand, New York City (Botein, Hays, Sklar & Herzberg, Julian L. Weber, Anthony S. Kaufmann, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiffappellee.
Defendants American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., George Schlatter Enterprises, Inc. and George Schlatter appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Charles L. Brieant, Jr., J., entered in favor of plaintiff-appellee The National Lampoon, Inc. after a trial without a jury, which permanently enjoined appellants from using the words “National Lampoon” or “lampoon” as the title for a television program and from using any set spelling the word “lampoon” in such a program. In his thorough opinion, reported at 376 F. Supp. 733 (1974), the judge justifiably found that the defendant broadcasting company had deliberately attempted to exploit National Lampoon’s well-known name and reputation in directing preparation of the pilot program by the other two defendants. On this basis alone the injunctive order should be affirmed, although we do not imply that the other grounds relied upon by the district court would not be sufficient, were we called upon to consider them.
Judgment affirmed.