American Equity Mortgage, Inc. v. Vinson
371 S.W.3d 62
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- VM appeals the jury verdict in favor of AEM on unfair competition claim.
- AEM is a Missouri corporation focused on residential mortgage and brokerage services based in St. Louis.
- Daughhetee and Vinson, Jr. founded AEM; their 2006 dissolution granted ownership to Daughhetee.
- Vinson subsequently formed Vinson Mortgage Services, Inc. (VM) and advertised via radio, TV, and print.
- AEM sued VM in October 2006 alleging VM used deceptive advertising to pass off as AEM; trial verdict awarded AEM $800,000.
- VM’s post-trial motions to vacate/reopen were denied, and VM appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Instruction 7 properly instructed the jury. | VM contends absence of secondary meaning requirement. | AEM argues Restatement-based instruction suffices. | Instruction 7 properly instructed the jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Motor Club of Mo., Inc. v. Noe, 475 S.W.2d 16 (Mo. 1972) (unfair competition involves passing off or attempting to pass off)
- Essex v. Getty Oil Co., 661 S.W.2d 544 (Mo.App. W.D.1983) (unfair competition as passing off; commercial hitchhiking)
- Soft-Lite Lens Co. v. Optical Service Co., 133 S.W.2d 1078 (Mo.App. 1939) (unfair competition—passing off goods or services)
- Joseph S. Baum, Mercantile Co. v. Levin, 174 S.W.442 (Mo.App.1915) (conduct likely to deceive public as to pass off one’s goods as another)
- Doe v. McFarlane, 207 S.W.3d 52 (Mo.App. E.D.2006) (non-MAI instructions may be used when applicable law requires)
- Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute, P.C., 304 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. banc 2010) (instructional-error review de novo; favorable view of submission standard)
- Moore ex rel. Moore v. BiState Dev. Agency, 87 S.W.3d 279 (Mo.App. E.D.2002) (instructional-error review framework; view evidence favorably)