The Nat'l Lampoon, Inc. v. Am. Broad. Companies, Inc., 497 F.2d 1343 (2d Cir. 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
The Nat'l Lampoon, Inc. v. Am. Broad. Companies, Inc., 497 F.2d 1343 (2d Cir. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
75 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 21 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jolly Good Industries, Inc. v. Elegra Inc. (nysd, 1988-07-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jolly Good Industries, Inc. v. Elegra Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1988 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Metro Kane, 625 F.Supp. 313, 316-17 (S.D.N.Y.1985), aff'd sub nom., 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir.1986); National Lampoon, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 376 F.Supp. 733, 747 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 497 F.2d 1343, 1343 (2d Cir.1974) (“[T]he judge justifiably found that the defendant ... had deliberately attempted to exploit [plaintiff’s] well-known name and reputation.”).
cited Cited "see" Kraft General Foods, Inc. v. Allied Old English, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See National Lampoon, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., 376 F.Supp. 733 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 497 F.2d 1343 (2d Cir.1974). 12 V.
cited Cited "see" Stern's Miracle-Gro Products, Inc. v. Shark Products, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See National Lampoon, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc., 376 F.Supp. 733 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 497 F.2d 1343 (2d Cir.1974).
discussed Cited "see" American Sleek Craft, Inc. v. Nescher
D. Ariz. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See National Lampoon, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 376 F.Supp. 733, 750 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd. 497 F.2d 1343 (2nd Cir.1974); Russ Berrie & Company v. Jerry Eisner Co., Inc., 482 F.Supp. 980, 989-90 (S.D.N.Y.1980).
discussed Cited "see" Television Enterprise Network, Inc. v. Entertainment Network, Inc.
D.N.J. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See National Lampoon Inc. v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc., 376 F.Supp. 733, 747 (S.D.N.Y.) (intent to deceive “raises a presumption that deception and confusion resulted”) (quoting National Van Lines v. Dean, 237 F.2d 688, 692 (9th Cir.1956)), aff'd, 497 F.2d 1343 (2d Cir.1974).
discussed Cited "see" Pizitz, Inc. v. Pizitz Mercantile Co. of Tuscaloosa, Inc.
N.D. Ala. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See, for example, National Lampoon, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Co., 376 F.Supp. 733 (S.D.N.Y.1974), affirmed 497 F.2d 1343 (2nd Cir. 1974) (misappropriation of the name “Lampoon” held actionable); Midwest Packaging Materials Co. v. Midwest Packaging Corp., 312 F.Supp. 134 (S.D.Iowa 1970) (similar-looking stock certificates); Harrison Services, Inc. v. Margino, 291 F.Supp. 319 (S.D.N.Y.1968) (sale catalog); Burger King of Florida, Inc. v. Brewer, 244 F.Supp. 293 (W.D.Tenn.1965) (holder of trademark “Whopper” allowed to proceed against user of trade name “Whopper Drive-In”).
discussed Cited "see" Polo Fashions, Inc. v. Extra Special Products, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
Courts recognize that where there exists “high probability of confusion, injury irreparable in the sense that it may not be fully compensable in damages almost inevitably follows.” Omega Importing Corp. v. Petri-Kine Camera Corp., 451 F.2d 1190, 1195 (2d Cir. 1971); see National Lampoon, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., 376 F.Supp. 733, 750 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 497 F.2d 1343 (2d Cir. 1974).
discussed Cited "see" Rare Earth, Inc. v. Hoorelbeke (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
S.D.N.Y. · 1975 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, National Lampoon, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 376 F. Supp. 733, 746 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 497 F.2d 1343 (2 Cir. 1974); Geisel v. Poynter Products, Inc., 283 F.Supp. 261, 267 (S.D.N.Y.1968).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Havana Club Holding, S.A. v. Galleon S.A.
2d Cir. · 2000 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
“Although a section 43 plaintiff need not be a direct competitor, it is apparent that, at a minimum, standing to bring a section 43 claim requires the potential for a commercial or competitive injury.” Berni v. International Gourmet Restaurants of America, Inc., 838 F.2d 642, 648 (2d Cir.1988) (citations omitted); see, e.g., National Lampoon, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., 376 F.Supp. 733, 746-47 (S.D.N.Y.) (publisher of National Lampoon magazine has standing to sue television network’s use of part of its name on two television programs, in part because plaintiff “has begun produc…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Havana Club Holding v. Galleon
2d Cir. · 2000 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
"Although a section 43 plaintiff need not be a direct competitor, it is apparent that, at a minimum, standing to bring a section 43 claim requires the potential for a commercial or competitive injury." Berni v. International Gourmet Restaurants of America, Inc., 838 F.2d 642, 648 (2d Cir. 1988) (citations omitted); see, e.g., National Lampoon, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., 376 F. Supp. 733, 746-47 (S.D.N.Y.) (publisher of National Lampoon magazine has standing to sue television network's use of part of its name on two television programs, in part because plaintiff "has begun production o…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co.
S.D.N.Y. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also National Lampoon, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 376 F.Supp. 733, 737-39 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd on other grounds, 497 F.2d 1343 (2d Cir.1974).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Quabaug Rubber Company v. Fabiano Shoe Co., Inc.
1st Cir. · 1977 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also National Lampoon, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 376 F.Supp. 733, 746 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 497 F.2d 1343 (2d Cir. 1974) (indirect competitors have standing); 1 R.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jacobs v. Robitaille
D.N.H. · 1976 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare, National Lampoon, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 376 F.Supp. 733, 747 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 497 F.2d 1343 (2d Cir. 1974), with American-Marietta Company v. Krigsman, 275 F.2d 287, 289 (2d Cir. 1960).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The NATIONAL LAMPOON, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., Et Al., Defendants-Appellants
1088, Docket 74-1441.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
May 2, 1974.
497 F.2d 1343
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.
Lumbard, Feinberg, Jameson.
Cited by 66 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

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.