In late June 2025, Gray Media filed a lawsuit against the parent of Hearst Television in a New York federal district court on the grounds the privately held owner of broadcast TV stations in markets ranging from Cincinnati to Savannah, Ga., infringed on its trademarked name for newscast weather reports. Hearst sought to dismiss the case.
The judge overseeing the 15-month-long legal tussle has declined to do so, forcing Hearst to move forward as a defendant in the lawsuit.
The legal fight is focused on Gray Media’s use since 2005 of the phrase “First Alert Weather” and its trademark covering “entertainment services in the nature of on-going television programs in the field of weather and weather reporting.”
Additionally, “First Alert Traffic” was introduced at Gray Media stations in 2006 and was similarly trademarked by the Atlanta-headquartered company.
Enter Hearst Television’s WPTZ-TV in Burlington, Vt.-Plattsburgh, N.Y.; WESH-TV in Orlando-Daytona Beach-Melbourne; and WPBF-TV in West Palm Beach-Stuart-Vero Beach. Under license, these stations licensed the “First Alert Weather” name from Gray. Similarly, Hearst-owned stations in Kansas City licensed the “First Alert Traffic” name for its two stations in that market.
Here’s the problem: Gray says the licenses for the three Hearst TV stations using “First Alert Weather” have expired, and as a result the station tweaked the service name to “First Warning Weather.” Furthermore, it introduced “First Warning Traffic” — and is using it in markets where Gray Media and Hearst Television compete against each other, including Kansas City, where Gray owns KCTV-TV and Hearst owns KCWE-TV and KMBC-TV.
This prompted Gray to sue, seeking a jury trial with representation by R. Charles Henn Jr. of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP.
That representation ended in June 2026, with Latham & Watkins LLP taking over as its legal counsel. Perhaps that was a magic move, as Paramjeet Sammi will now be taking a lead position in Gray’s defense of its trademarks against Hearst’s inside counsel.
On September 26, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil declined to grant Hearst’s motion to dismiss the case, noting that Gray’s October 2023 cease-and-desist request to Hearst was not adhered to with Hearst — as Gray sees it — expanding the use of the trademarked weather and traffic service names.
Vyskocil explained that Hearst, using Lanham Act claims, is arguing that Gray “has not plausibly alleged a likelihood of consumer confusion” and that Gray “improperly seeks to monopolize the English language.” Furthermore, she noted that Hearst argues that Count III — a state-law claim — fails for the same reasons while Hearst offers the additional reason that “Gray does not allege, and cannot allege, any public harm”— a requirement under New York law.
The judge’s response? “Except with respect to the ‘public harm’ requirement, Hearst’s arguments are poorly conceived at this stage of the litigation,” Vyskocil said, adding that, in her view, the “First Alert Weather” and “First Warning Weather” names are similar.
As such, the case will continue as she dismissed the New York claim, with a Delaware claim remaining for a ruling — unless a settlement between Gray and Hearst is reached.
