Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Smart Candle sells light-emitting diode flameless candles and commercial lighting systems internationally. Excell sued under the LanhamAct alleging that Smart Candle’s use of the trade name and trademark “Smart Candle” infringed rights that Excell had over use of that name and trademark. Selective insured Smart Candle during the period in which the Excell suit commenced, but disclaimed coverage, based on exclusion any injury “arising out of the infringement of copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property rights” that “does not apply to infringement in your ‘advertisement’ of copyright, trade dress or slogan.” Excell won its suit. Selective sought a declaration that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify. Smart Candle counterclaimed breach of contract, arguing that Selective had not conducted “reasonable investigation of Excell’s Claims” including “a review of Smart Candle’s website . . . or any of Smart Candle’s advertising before denying coverage.” The district court granted Selective summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that no reasonable jury would conclude that Excell was suing for slogan infringement and that Selective had no duty to investigate “beyond the four corners of the complaint” to determine whether other facts could trigger Selective’s duty to defend or indemnify. View "Selective Ins. Co. v. Smart Candle, LLC" on Justia Law

Syngenta, producer of a genetically-modified corn seed, filed suit against Bunge, an agricultural produce storage and transport company, alleging breach of an obligation under the United States Warehouse Act (USWA), 7 U.S.C. 241-256; breach of a duty to third party beneficiaries of a licensing agreement between Bunge and the federal government; and false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125. The court concluded that the text of the USWA and the structure of the Act do not implicitly authorize a private cause of action for violations of a warehouse operator's fair treatment obligations; Syngenta is not a third-party beneficiary of the License Agreement and the district court did not err in dismissing this claim on the pleadings; and the court found it was necessary to remand the Lanham Act claim, in light of Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., for the district court to determine in the first instance whether Syngenta has standing to bring the claim under the zone-of-interests test and proximate causality requirements. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the USWA and third-party beneficiary claims, and vacated the grant of summary judgment to Bunge on the Lanham Act claim and remanded for further proceedings. View "Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Bunge North America, Inc." on Justia Law

After the company it hired to compile research on the greeting cards market, Monitor, transmitted confidential market research it had prepared for Hallmark to a private equity firm, Clipper, Hallmark filed suit against Monitor and Clipper. Hallmark settled with Monitor and a jury awarded Hallmark compensatory and punitive damages in the case against Clipper. The court concluded that the jury had sufficient evidence to find that Hallmark's PowerPoint presentations constituted trade secrets under the Missouri Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. 417.450 et seq; the jury verdict did not give Hallmark a double recovery where Hallmark's settlement with Monitor and its jury verdict against Clipper compensated Hallmark for independent injuries and no reduction of the jury award was necessary; and the punitive damages against Clipper were permissible under Missouri law where defendant acted with reckless disregard for Hallmark's rights and the Due Process Clause where it was not grossly excessive. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of Clipper's motion for judgment as a matter of law and, alternatively, to alter or amend the judgment. View "Hallmark Cards v. Monitor Clipper Partners" on Justia Law

Lovely Skin filed suit against Ishtar, alleging four counts of trademark infringement and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1127, and common law unfair competition and injury to business reputation in violation of Nebraska law. Ishtar counterclaimed, seeking cancellation of the registrations of Lovely Skin's two trademarks. The court concluded that Ishtar did not demonstrate that Lovely Skin's trademarks were not registrable because they lacked acquired distinctiveness at the time of their registrations. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's judgment canceling the registrations of LOVELYSKIN and LOVELYSKIN.COM. The court also concluded that the district court did not commit clear error in considering all of the SquirtCo v. Seven-Up Company factors and determining that no likelihood of confusion existed between Lovely Skin's trademarks and Ishtar's website. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment for Ishtar on all four counts. View "Lovely Skin, Inc. v. Ishtar Skin Care Products, LLC" on Justia Law

B&B, manufacturer and seller of a product called "Sealtight," filed suit against Hargis, manufacturer of a product called "Sealtite," claiming trademark infringement and unfair competition. Hargis counterclaimed for false advertising and false designation of origin. The jury returned a verdict which rejected B&B's claims but found in favor of Hargis on its counterclaims. On appeal, B&B argued that the district court should have given preclusive effect to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's (TTAB) findings concerning the likelihood of confusion of the two companies' trademarks. B&B also appealed the award of attorney fees and costs. The court concluded that the district court properly refused to apply collateral estoppel to the TTAB's decision; rejected B&B's argument that the TTAB's factual findings from a trademark registration case were entitled to deference by the district court; and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the TTAB's decision from the evidence presented to the jury. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of B&B's motion for judgment as a matter of law or alternative motion for a new trial based on its claim of issue preclusion; affirmed the district court's evidentiary decisions; and remanded the award of attorney fees with directions to amend the award by deducting Hargis's attorney fees for the prior appeal. View "B & B Hardware v. Hargis Industries, et al" on Justia Law

APLC moved to unseal a complaint filed by IDT and Net2Phone in a civil suit against eBay, Skype, and Skype Technologies. APLC moved to intervene in the suit and urged the district court to unseal the complaint in the interest of an open court system. The district court denied APLC's motion. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its decision to seal sensitive business information included in the complaint where the potential harm of unsealing confidential and competitively sensitive information outweighed ALPC's generalized interest in access to the complaint. However, the court vacated the order and remanded for the district court either to explain why sealing of the entire pleading was warranted or to unseal a redacted version of the complaint. View "IDT Corp, et al v. AR Public Law Center" on Justia Law

Retro Television Network appealed the district court's dismissal of its claims against appellees, Luken and Retro Television, under Rule 12(b)(6). In 2005, Equity entered into an intellectual property agreement (IPA) with Retro Television Network. Retro Television Network subsequently sued appellees seeking royalty payments and an accounting under the IPA. Because Retro Television Network failed to allege any facts that would make Luken liable for Equity's obligations under the IPA, the district court properly dismissed its claims against Luken. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees. View "Retro Television Network, Inc. v. Luken Communications LLC, et al" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a dispute between several recording companies and defendant. Defendant willfully infringed copyrights of 24 sound recordings by engaging in file-sharing on the Internet. On appeal, the companies appealed the remedy ordered by the district court. The court concluded that the recording companies were entitled to the remedies they sought: damages of $222,000 and a broadened injunction that forbid defendant to make available sound recordings for distribution. But because the verdicts returned by the second and third juries were sufficient to justify these remedies, it was unnecessary for the court to consider the merits of the district court's order granting a new trial after the first verdict. View "Capitol Records, Inc., et al v. Thomas-Rasset" on Justia Law

FNB South Dakota and its affiliates appealed from the district court's entry of a permanent injunction against them as a remedy for trademark infringement and unfair competition claims brought by FNB Sioux Falls. FNB Sioux Falls cross-appealed the denial of its motion for attorney's fees and the district court's purported factual finding that certain of FNB South Dakota's affiliates' names "appear" not to infringe FNB Sioux Falls' marks. The court held that, because the nucleus of operative facts in this action included facts not common to the prior action, this action was not barred by res judicata; the admission of the confusion log was harmless error; the district court's finding of a likelihood of confusion was based on a permissible view of the evidence and was therefore not clearly erroneous; and the district court's denial of fees must be affirmed. The court also declined to strike the challenged language from the district court's Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

This was an appeal of two consolidated suits brought under Indiana's and Missouri's trade secret statutes, involving information about the repair and overhaul of helicopter engines published by Rolls-Royce. The court held that the district court did not err in granting Rolls-Royce summary judgment on its trade secret claims where AvidAir was not entitled to the value of the proprietary revised documents, even if the new technical specifications were relatively minor in the context of the overhaul process as whole. Having concluded that the documents in question were protected trade secrets, the district court did not err in granting an injunction in favor of Rolls-Royce. Consequently, the court also affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Rolls-Royce on AvidAir's antitrust and tortious interference claims. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.