American Television And Communications Corporation v. Manning

651 P.2d 440 (1982)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is engaged in the business of furnishing television programs to residents of the Denver Metropolitan Area. ATC purchases the exclusive rights to display the programs from Home Box Office, Inc., (HBO) and pays common carriers to deliver the programs via microwave from the point of origin. The signal ordinarily travels by satellite to an earth receiving station in Denver, where it is relayed to a microwave antenna atop Lookout Mountain. From this antenna, a common carrier under agreement with P provides 'multi-point distribution service,' transmitting the signal to P's home subscribers. P installs and leases to each subscriber a special antenna and down converter which makes the signal capable of viewing on the ordinary television set, and services the equipment after installation. Ds advertise, sell, and install antennas and down converters which are capable of receiving the HBO signal. The antennas are capable of receiving signals of various frequencies but are designed such that the center of their receiving capability matches the HBO frequency. Ds advertised that the equipment they were selling was capable of receiving the HBO signal and that some Ds installed and adjusted the equipment for purchasers so that it would receive HBO. The 'pirate' equipment is easily concealed, and some of it is visually indistinguishable from the equipment installed by P. P sued Ds for damages, both actual and exemplary, and injunctive relief. P claimed Ds' conduct violated § 18-9-309, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8), which prohibits sale of illegal telecommunications equipment. The second claim for relief alleged that Ds' conduct constituted the tort of conversion. The third claim for relief is based on an allegation of unfair competition. P's fourth claim for relief alleged that Ds made false representations in connection with the sale of the devices and that such misrepresentations constituted deceptive trade practices under § 6-1-105(1), C.R.S. 1973. The court denied P’s motion for a preliminary injunction and also eventually dismissed P’s first count. P appealed.