Alli Good Govt v. Coaltn Better Govt, 998 F.3d 661

Background

Alliance for Good Government (Alliance) sued Coalition for Better Government (Coalition), both New Orleans political nonprofits, alleging federal trademark infringement of a word mark and a composite logo under the Lanham Act; Alliance later dismissed state-law and other claims.
The district court granted summary judgment for Alliance on federal trademark infringement and enjoined Coalition’s use of both marks; this court (Alliance I) affirmed but narrowed the injunction to the composite mark only.
The district court awarded Alliance $68,237.25 in attorney’s fees as an "exceptional" Lanham Act case; this court (Alliance II) affirmed the exceptional finding but remanded to exclude fees allocable to the unsuccessful word-mark claim and voluntarily dismissed claims.
On remand Alliance proposed an across-the-board 10% reduction for intertwined work on the word mark and a $1,500 deduction for dismissed claims; Alliance also moved to join Coalition’s principal/attorney Darleen Jacobs after learning Coalition might lack assets to satisfy fees.
The district court joined Jacobs, afforded her an opportunity to respond, found her individually responsible for Coalition’s litigation conduct, and awarded Alliance $148,006.15 (including fees for subsequent appellate and fee-litigation work).
Coalition and Jacobs appealed the joinder and the reasonableness/extent of the fee award; the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court on joinder, individual liability, and the fee award (with a dissent arguing the Lanham Act does not reach noncommercial political speech and that Jacobs cannot be held personally liable under §1117(a)).

Issues

Issue	Alliance's Argument	Coalition/Jacobs' Argument	Held
1. Post-judgment joinder of Jacobs — due process	Joinder was necessary because Coalition lacked assets; Jacobs was given opportunity to respond	Joinder post-judgment violated Nelson and denied adequate process	No abuse of discretion; joinder satisfied due process because Jacobs was joined and given time to respond before liability was imposed
2. Personal liability of non-party Jacobs under Lanham Act fee-shifting	Jacobs (as Coalition principal and signer of key filings) caused the exceptional conduct and may be held liable	Jacobs argued §1117(a) doesn’t authorize fees against opposing counsel and she acted as counsel, not a corporate officer	District court did not abuse discretion: properly-imposed individual liability where non-party’s conduct (as principal/signatory) supported exceptional-case finding
3. District court authority to award appellate and fee-litigation fees; mandate compliance	Alliance argued appellate/fee-litigation fees are recoverable and remand didn’t bar such awards	Appellants argued only appellate court may award appellate fees and remand limited district court to reducing previous award	District court may award appellate and later-fee litigation fees under §1117(a); awarding such fees on remand did not contravene this court’s mandate
4. Reasonableness/documentation of requested fees	Alliance contended time was intertwined; sought 10% reduction and $1,500 credit instead of detailed apportionment	Appellants said billing failed to segregate work and reductions were insufficient; court ignored objections	District court reasonably adjusted for apportionment (10% reduction + $1,500) and considered Appellants’ objections; no abuse of discretion in fee amount

Key Cases Cited

Nelson v. Adams USA, Inc., 529 U.S. 460 (2000) (post-judgment joinder requires opportunity to be heard)
Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545 (2014) (exceptional-case inquiry for fee-shifting statutes)
All. for Good Gov’t v. Coal. for Better Gov’t (Alliance I), 901 F.3d 498 (5th Cir. 2018) (initial appeal affirming infringement but limiting injunction to composite mark)
All. for Good Gov’t v. Coal. for Better Gov’t (Alliance II), 919 F.3d 291 (5th Cir. 2019) (affirmed exceptional finding; remanded to reallocate fees)
Tollett v. City of Kemah, 285 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2002) (mandate rule: remand court must follow letter and spirit of appellate mandate)
Insituform Tech., Inc. v. CAT Contracting, Inc., 385 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (non-parties can be held liable under Patent Act’s fee-shifting when conduct makes the case exceptional)
Baker v. DeShong, 821 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 2016) (treating Lanham Act and Patent Act fee-shifting provisions as analogous)
Seven-Up Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 86 F.3d 1379 (5th Cir. 1996) (limiting §43(a) Lanham Act claims to commercial speech contexts)
Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2005) (elements of trademark use and the commercial-use requirement)
Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, 505 U.S. 763 (1992) (Lanham Act’s protection of goodwill and consumer-source identification)