Decision of Note: <B>Court Dismisses Idea Suit over TV 'Idol' Show</B>

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, ruled that the creator of a proposed stage or TV talent show entitled “American Idol” did not have a claim for false designation of origin under the federal Lanham Act against the producers of the TV series with the same name. Keane v. Fox Television Stations Inc., 03-1642.

Plaintiff Harry Keane Jr. had claimed that he had fulfilled the Lanham Act's interstate commerce requirement in distributing a sales packet in which he sought investors for his project. But the district court noted a discrepancy between how Keane described the sales packet in his complaint and the evidence itself: “Nothing about the substance of this [sales] letter, which lacks any return address, telephone number, or other contact information, suggests that it embodies an attempt to sell an idea to production companies. Instead, it appears to be an effort to get 'sponsorship' from 'business owners' for Keane's company so that Keane could produce 'family musical theatre' in Marshalltown, IA. The letter does not mention a 'sales packet' or allude to any enclosures. … [In any case, s]eeking 'sponsorship' for one's own production and seeking to sell an idea so that others might turn it into a production are two distinct activities.”

The district court went on to note, however, that Keane admitted he hadn't sold his show product, which “alone amounts to a failure to plead the threshold requirement of a Lanham Act cause of action because mere expectation or hope that a mark will be used, ie, attempts at 'promotion and marketing' of an idea under a 'mark,' is insufficient to establish exclusive rights in a mark.” The court added that, “trademarks are devices intended to identify fully developed products and services, not ideas for products or services. … [A]n idea for a television show is neither a product nor a service within the purview of trademark law.”

Also, Keane hadn't claimed that the general public had seen his “American Idol” trademark.

The court further ruled that Keane's mass mailing and Internet posting of his sales material didn't establish an implied-in-fact contract with the defendants under state law because “[n]either the act of mass-mailing a 'sales packet' to a stranger, wherein an idea is described, nor the act of advertising an unprotected idea for sale on the Internet is an act likely to create an implied contract between the idea man and those who read of his idea as a result. Furthermore, the letter to which Keane points to buttress his allegations neither offers an idea for sale nor conditions the disclosure of an idea on a promise that he be paid should the letter's recipient opt to use his idea at some point in the future.”

On Keane's other state law claims, the district court first found no misappropriation of a product because Keane hadn't produced one. Second, to proceed with his claims of misappropriation of an idea or a trade secret, Keane would need to show that an expectation of confidentiality existed. Keane argued that he had sent a packet to defendant Pearson TV International (now known as FremantleMedia NA) after seeing a company advertisement in Variety. The ad listed company contacts and information about new films, videos and TV shows.

Keane claimed that, under industry custom, confidentiality could be expected from sending materials to a company who placed such an ad. But Keane hadn't alleged any prior dealings or an explicit agreement between himself and Pearson TV. The court emphasized: “Keane had no ability to create a confidential relationship between him and the production companies to whom he allegedly sent his idea simply by declaring that it was self-evident that he was hoping to be paid for its use.”

The district court also dismissed Keane's state claims for common law trademark infringement and unfair competition. The court added that, in any case, federal copyright law preempted Keane's state law claims.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, ruled that the creator of a proposed stage or TV talent show entitled “American Idol” did not have a claim for false designation of origin under the federal Lanham Act against the producers of the TV series with the same name. Keane v. Fox Television Stations Inc., 03-1642.

Plaintiff Harry Keane Jr. had claimed that he had fulfilled the Lanham Act's interstate commerce requirement in distributing a sales packet in which he sought investors for his project. But the district court noted a discrepancy between how Keane described the sales packet in his complaint and the evidence itself: “Nothing about the substance of this [sales] letter, which lacks any return address, telephone number, or other contact information, suggests that it embodies an attempt to sell an idea to production companies. Instead, it appears to be an effort to get 'sponsorship' from 'business owners' for Keane's company so that Keane could produce 'family musical theatre' in Marshalltown, IA. The letter does not mention a 'sales packet' or allude to any enclosures. … [In any case, s]eeking 'sponsorship' for one's own production and seeking to sell an idea so that others might turn it into a production are two distinct activities.”

The district court went on to note, however, that Keane admitted he hadn't sold his show product, which “alone amounts to a failure to plead the threshold requirement of a Lanham Act cause of action because mere expectation or hope that a mark will be used, ie, attempts at 'promotion and marketing' of an idea under a 'mark,' is insufficient to establish exclusive rights in a mark.” The court added that, “trademarks are devices intended to identify fully developed products and services, not ideas for products or services. … [A]n idea for a television show is neither a product nor a service within the purview of trademark law.”

Also, Keane hadn't claimed that the general public had seen his “American Idol” trademark.

The court further ruled that Keane's mass mailing and Internet posting of his sales material didn't establish an implied-in-fact contract with the defendants under state law because “[n]either the act of mass-mailing a 'sales packet' to a stranger, wherein an idea is described, nor the act of advertising an unprotected idea for sale on the Internet is an act likely to create an implied contract between the idea man and those who read of his idea as a result. Furthermore, the letter to which Keane points to buttress his allegations neither offers an idea for sale nor conditions the disclosure of an idea on a promise that he be paid should the letter's recipient opt to use his idea at some point in the future.”

On Keane's other state law claims, the district court first found no misappropriation of a product because Keane hadn't produced one. Second, to proceed with his claims of misappropriation of an idea or a trade secret, Keane would need to show that an expectation of confidentiality existed. Keane argued that he had sent a packet to defendant Pearson TV International (now known as FremantleMedia NA) after seeing a company advertisement in Variety. The ad listed company contacts and information about new films, videos and TV shows.

Keane claimed that, under industry custom, confidentiality could be expected from sending materials to a company who placed such an ad. But Keane hadn't alleged any prior dealings or an explicit agreement between himself and Pearson TV. The court emphasized: “Keane had no ability to create a confidential relationship between him and the production companies to whom he allegedly sent his idea simply by declaring that it was self-evident that he was hoping to be paid for its use.”

The district court also dismissed Keane's state claims for common law trademark infringement and unfair competition. The court added that, in any case, federal copyright law preempted Keane's state law claims.