Justia Commercial Law Opinion Summaries

Best designs and markets exit signs and emergency lighting. Pace manufactured products to Best’s specifications. Best’s founder taught Pace how to manufacture the necessary tooling. There was no contract prohibiting Pace from competing with Best. By 2004, Best was aware that Pace was selling products identical to those it made for Best to Best’s established customers. Several other problems arose between the companies. When they ended the relationship, Pace was in possession of all of the tooling used to manufacture Best’s products and the cloned products, and Best owed Pace almost $900,000 for products delivered. Pace filed a breach of contract suit. Best requested a setoff of damages for breach of warranty and counterclaimed for breach of contract, tortious interference, misappropriation of trade secrets, conversion, and fraud. Pace claimed that Best had misappropriated Pace’s trade secrets and had tortiously interfered with Pace’s contracts. The district court found that Best had breached its contractual obligations by failing to pay, but that Pace was liable for breach of warranties, breach of contract, tortious interference, misappropriation of trade secrets, conversion, and false designation of origin and false advertising under the Lanham Act. The Sixth Circuit affirmed that Pace is liable for breach of contract and tortious interference, but reversed or vacated as to the trade secrets, Lanham Act, conversion, and warranties claims. View "Kehoe Component Sales Inc. v. Best Lighting Prods., Inc." on Justia Law

Stonebridge, an engraver of promotional pocket knives, sued its former distributor Cutting-Edge and its members; competitor knife engraver TaylorMade and its sole member and manager Taylor, a former Stonebridge employee; and Massey, a TaylorMade employee and former Stonebridge employee, arising from Massey’s copying Stonebridge’s computer files and using those files to solicit business from Stonebridge customers. Stonebridge brought claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968; the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), Ark. Code 4-88-101; and Arkansas common law. The district court partially found for Stonebridge on its fraud and conversion claims, dismissed the remaining eight claims, and denied the parties’ motions for attorney fees. The Eighth Circuit upheld: the finding that defendants converted the copies of certain files created by Stonebridge; an award of damages for unjust enrichment; a finding Stonebridge did not establish the existence of a business expectancy under Arkansas law; a finding Cutting-Edge fraudulently induced Stonebridge to send sample knives while intending to employ TaylorMade as its engraver on the orders placed as a result of seeing the samples; and dismissal of the RICO and ADTPA claims. View "Stonebridge Collection, Inc. v. Carmichael" on Justia Law

Sorensen is the CEO of Inhibitor Technology, which produces rust-inhibiting products containing volatile corrosion inhibitor (VCI), branded with the federally registered trademark THE INHIBITOR. That word mark is owned by Sorensen; he also claims common law trademark rights in a design mark associated with his products, an orange-and-black crosshair. The WD-40 Company, maker of the spray lubricant, introduced the new WD-40 Specialist product line. Sorensen claimed that the branding for those products infringed upon his marks. WD-40 Specialist Long-Term Corrosion Inhibitor, which contains VCI and has a purpose similar to that of Sorensen’s products, contains on its packaging both the word “inhibitor” and an orange crosshair. The district court granted summary judgment, finding that WD-40’s use of the word “inhibitor” was a non-trademark descriptive fair use of the word. As to the crosshair mark, the court found that Sorensen had not presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to a likelihood of confusion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The most important factors: similarity of the marks, bad faith intent, and evidence of actual confusion, weigh in favor of WD-40. No consumer would think that the marks are similar. The court noted the” clear weakness of Sorensen’s marks,” which appear inconsistently on his products. View "Sorensen v. WD-40 Co." on Justia Law

Carhart and Halaska own CHI. CHI terminated its sales agent, MRO, which filed a federal suit for breach of contract. Carhart bought MRO’s claim for $150,000 and became the plaintiff in a suit against a company of which he was a half owner. Halaska then sued Carhart in Wisconsin state court for breach of fiduciary duties to CHI and Halaska by becoming the plaintiff and by writing checks on CHI bank accounts without approval, depositing payments owed CHI into Carhart’s own account, and withholding accounting and other financial information from Halaska. A receiver was appointed, informed the federal court that CHI had no assets out of which to pay a lawyer, and consented to entry of a $242,000 default judgment (the amount sought by Carhart), giving Carhart a potential profit of $92,000 on his purchase of MRO’s claim. In Carhart’s suit to execute that judgment, CHI’s only asset was its Wisconsin suit against Carhart. The court ordered the sale of CHI’s lawsuit at public auction; Carhart, the only bidder, bought it for $10,000, ending all possibility that CHI could proceed against him for his alleged plundering of the company. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Auctioning off the lawsuit placed Carhart ahead of CHI’s other creditors. Carhart was not a purchaser in good faith. No valid interest is impaired by rescinding the sale, enabling CHI to prosecute its suit against Carhart. View "Carhart v. Carhart-Halaska Int'l, LLC" on Justia Law

Pharmacy benefit manager Medco is an intermediary between health plan sponsors (often employers) and prescription drug companies, enabling plans to offer less expensive prescription drug benefits to their members. Medco keeps an updated list of available medicines (formulary) available and sends that list to prescribers and to plan sponsors so they can keep costs down for members. Sandusky provides chiropractic services and prescribes medications to patients who are members of prescription drug plans contracted with Medco. Medco faxed part of its formulary to Sandusky in June 2010, asking Sandusky to “consider prescribing plan-preferred drugs” to “help lower medication costs. Other than listing Medco’s name and number, the fax did not promote Medco’s services and did not solicit business. Three months later, Medco sent Sandusky another fax that informed Sandusky that a certain respiratory drug brand was preferred over another brand, and could save patients money. Sandusky, on behalf of a proposed class, sued Medco, claiming that the faxes were “unsolicited advertisements” prohibited by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C). The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Medco, finding that the faxes were not advertisements as a matter of law because their primary purpose was informational rather than promotional. View "Sandusky Wellness Ctr., LLC v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from Ward Farms' purchase of Enerbase Cooperative Resource's tractor at a third-party auction sale. Michael Ward, a partner of Ward Farms, attended an auction sale, and bid on the tractor. Shortly after the sale, Ward Farms discovered the tractor required significant repairs. At Ward Farms' request, Enerbase inspected the tractor and estimated the repair costs as ranging from $19,550 to $31,430. Subsequently, Ward Farms sued Enerbase alleging fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, and breach of express and implied warranties. Ward Farms sought alternative remedies of rescission or damages. Ward Farms appealed the district court judgment denying its motion to amend its complaint and granting a summary judgment motion in favor of Enerbase. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ward Farms' motion to amend, and the district court did not err in granting Enerbase's summary judgment motion because Ward Farms did not raise an issue of material fact regarding its claim. View "Ward Farms v. Enerbase Cooperative Resource" on Justia Law

Plaintiff claims that she entered into a credit card purchase from defendants, which did not involve mail order, shipping or cash advances, but that she “was asked for personal identification information, in the form of her email address, by defendants’ employee attending to the transaction.” Plaintiff provided the requested personal identification information, which was entered into the electronic sales register at the checkout counter adjacent to both defendants’ employee and plaintiff.” The amended complaint alleged violation of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, Civil Code 1747.08, which provides that: [N]o person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation that accepts credit cards for the transaction of business shall . . . request, or require as a condition to accepting the credit card as payment in full or in part for goods or services, the cardholder to provide personal identification information, which the person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation accepting the credit card writes, causes to be written, or otherwise records upon the credit card transaction form or otherwise.” The trial court declined to certify a class in plaintiff’s suit. The court of appeal affirmed, agreeing that does not prohibit the collection of personal identification information once a credit card transaction has been concluded. View "Harrold v. Levi Strauss & Co." on Justia Law

Luitpold is a New York corporation that develops and markets drugs and medical devices, including dental implant products. Geistlich, a Swiss corporation that develops and manufactures dental products, now owns the patents and trademarks for the Bio-Oss and Bio-Glide dental products, which are used to aid bone and tissue growth in patients following dental procedures. In 1994,, following failed attempts to market its products in the United States through other companies, Geistlich and Luitpold entered into interdependent commercial and license agreements to establish a distribution relationship for the sale of Geistlich’s dental products throughout the United States and Canada. The parties later entered into additional agreements and amendments. In 2010, Geistlich declared its intent to terminate the distribution relationship, without compensation to Luitpold, as of 2011. Geistlich did not allege breach of the agreements, but declared that the agreements had been in effect for a “reasonable” time and that under New York law, Geistlich could unilaterally terminate them upon reasonable notice. Luitpold sought declaratory relief, specific performance, damages, and prejudgment attachment of Geistlich patents and trademarks. The district court rejected all claims. The Second Circuit vacated and remanded, finding that material issues of fact precluded dismissal or summary judgment on certain claims. View "Luitpold Pharm., Inc. v. Ed. Geistlich Sohne A.G." on Justia Law

Gordon Auto Body Parts, a Taiwanese company, was one of several early entrants into the U.S. market for replacement truck hoods. PBSI eventually entered the market for certain replacement hoods but found that it could not match the prices of Gordon and other Taiwanese firms, with which Gordon had participated in joint ventures. Believing that Gordon and the other firms were conspiring to drive it out of business with predatory prices, PBSI brought antitrust claims against Gordon. The district court granted Gordon summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that PBSI failed to make any showing that Gordon’s prices were below an appropriate measure of cost. View "Superior Prod. P'shp v. Gordon Auto Body Parts Co." on Justia Law

Environmental Law Foundation (ELF), sued Beech-Nut and other food manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, seeking enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly referred to as Proposition 65 (Health & Saf. Code, 25249.5). ELF alleged certain of defendants’ products contain toxic amounts of lead sufficient to trigger the duty to provide warnings to consumers. The trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants, concluding they had no duty to warn because they satisfactorily demonstrated that the average consumer’s reasonably anticipated rate of exposure to lead from their products falls below relevant regulatory thresholds. The court of appeal affirmed, analyzing regulations promulgated by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. View "Environmental Law Found. v. Beech-Nut Nutrition" on Justia Law