Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractplaintiffinjunction
plaintiffdefendantinjunctionaffidavitmotion

Related Cases

Fox Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Dish Network L.L.C., 747 F.3d 1060, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 765, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 959
View Case »
Shamsky v. Garan, Inc., 167 Misc.2d 149, 632 N.Y.S.2d 930
View Case »
Kent State University v. Bradley University, 136 N.E.3d 774, 373 Ed. Law Rep. 352, 2019-Ohio-2088
View Case »
Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc. v. Allen, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2013 WL 1339820, 195 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2497
View Case »
WCVB-TV v. Boston Athletic Ass’n, 926 F.2d 42, 59 USLW 2576, 17 U.S.P.Q.2d 1688, 18 Media L. Rep. 1710
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Pittsburgh Athletic Co. v. KQV Broadcasting Co., 24 F.Supp. 490, 39 U.S.P.Q. 263

Facts

The Pittsburgh Athletic Company, owner of the professional baseball team 'Pirates,' filed a suit against KQV Broadcasting Company to prevent it from broadcasting play-by-play reports of the Pirates' games. The plaintiffs had granted exclusive broadcasting rights to General Mills, Inc., which in turn contracted with the National Broadcasting Company. KQV, however, was broadcasting the games using information from paid observers stationed outside the ballpark. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to protect their exclusive rights.

The plaintiffs have moved for a preliminary injunction pendente lite. This motion was heard on the bill of complaint, injunction affidavits, and counter-affidavits.

Issue

Whether KQV Broadcasting Company has the legal right to broadcast play-by-play descriptions of baseball games played by the Pirates without authorization from the Pittsburgh Athletic Company.

Is the defendant within its legal rights in the practices thus pursued by it?

Rule

Owner of professional baseball team which maintained baseball park and paid players who participated in game had property right in news value of games played by team, which right could be sold to advertisers as advertising mediums for their merchandise.

Analysis

The court found that the Pittsburgh Athletic Company, through its contracts with General Mills, Inc. and others, held exclusive rights to broadcast the games. KQV's actions interfered with these rights, as it was broadcasting the same information obtained through its observers. The court emphasized that the right to control the dissemination of game news is a property right that must be protected, and KQV's broadcasts were deemed unfair competition.

This right the defendant interferes with when it uses its broadcasting facilities for giving out the identical news obtained by its paid observers stationed at points outside Forbes Field for the purpose of securing information which it cannot otherwise acquire.

Conclusion

The court granted the preliminary injunction, ruling that KQV's unauthorized broadcasts constituted unfair competition and violated the plaintiffs' property rights.

The plaintiffs are entitled to and are hereby granted a preliminary injunction.

Who won?

The Pittsburgh Athletic Company prevailed in this case because the court recognized its exclusive rights to broadcast the games. The court determined that KQV's actions were not only unauthorized but also constituted unfair competition, depriving the plaintiffs of the benefits of their investments in the team and the broadcasting rights. The court's ruling emphasized the importance of protecting property rights in the context of commercial broadcasting.

On this state of facts, we are of the opinion that the plaintiffs have presented a case which entitles them under the law to a preliminary injunction.

You must be