into these business establishments in commercial competition with theatres. it was never our intent, written or otherwise, to allow restaurants, taverns, et cetera to advertise and exploit the films bought from you in order to entice and invite. Eastin), Hal Roach informed plaintiff that ". Shakey's advertised the films and showed them to the general public without an admission charge as part of its effort to attract customers to its restaurants. and its franchisees for exhibition of the films throughout the country in restaurants known as Shakey's Pizza Parlors.
Subsequent to executing the licensing agreement, plaintiff commenced selling the films to Shakey's, Inc. It is understood that showings in schools, churches, clubs, lodges, supermarkets, night clubs, restaurants, taverns, hospitals, homes, orphanages and such institutions as well as by industry are considered noncompetitive with established theatres." (Emphasis added.) "`Nontheatrical' as used herein is defined as exhibitions on substandard dimension motion picture film only and outside of regularly established motion picture theatres, and not in commercial competition therewith. At issue in the motion for a preliminary injunction is the meaning to be given to paragraph 5 of the agreement which provides in part: "It is understood that the rights granted hereunder are limited to home and nontheatrical use.
The subjects included several Laurel and Hardy films. The licensing agreement in question granted plaintiff the exclusive right to "duplicate, print, re-record, release, sell, distribute and exploit such motion picture film subjects" owned by Hal Roach and listed in the agreement. Jurisdiction is founded on diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff is also seeking to enjoin the defendants from interfering with the exhibition of such films by certain nontheatrical organizations to which plaintiff might sell these films. ("Hal Roach") and Richard Feiner & Company ("Feiner") from interfering with plaintiff's sales of substandard dimension motion picture films of the subjects enumerated in a licensing agreement between Eastin-Phelan and Hal Roach dated February 16, 1968. 65(a) for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants Hal Roach Studios, Inc. Plaintiff Eastin-Phelan Corporation moves pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Hardee, Barovich, Konecky & Gaines, New York City, for defendant Richard Feiner & Co. Pryor, Braun, Cashman & Sherman, New York City (Sanford Goldman, New York City, of counsel), for defendant Hal Roach. O'Connor, New York City, Schuyler, Birch, Swindler, McKie & Beckett, Washington, D. *1329 Shenier & O'Connor, New York City (Francis M.
0 kommentar(er)
