Arkansas Lottery Commission v. Alpha Marketing
2012 Ark. 23
| Ark. | 2012Background
- Alpha Marketing filed a 2010 declaratory judgment action against the Arkansas Lottery Commission to validate its marks: Arkansas Lottery, Arkansas Lotto, and Lottery Arkansas.
- Alpha Marketing alleged use of the marks in advertising and that the Arkansas Secretary of State had registered the marks.
- A 2009 cease-and-desist from the Attorney General led to the matter being referred to the Commission; Alpha Marketing amended its complaint on August 30, 2010, adding a trademark-infringement claim.
- The Commission moved to dismiss on September 21, 2010 on multiple grounds, including sovereign immunity and the validity of the marks.
- The circuit court, after a hearing, on March 11, 2011 denied the motion to dismiss and held that Alpha Marketing stated a claim for trademark infringement; it did not expressly rule on sovereign immunity in that order.
- The Commission appealed on an interlocutory basis, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of a ruling on sovereign immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the sovereign-immunity ruling preserved for review? | Commission says court ruled on immunity denial. | Court did not rule on sovereign immunity. | No sovereign-immunity ruling; appeal improper. |
| May the interlocutory appeal proceed without a specific ruling on sovereign immunity? | Immunity issue was argued and denied; ripe for review. | No ruling on immunity, so no interlocutory review. | Interlocutory appeal not proper without a ruling on sovereign immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carquest of Hot Springs, Inc. v. General Parts, Inc., 361 Ark. 25 (2005) (dismissal of class claims without ruling on certification not final; limits interlocutory review)
- Malone & Hyde, Inc. v. West & Co. of La., Inc., 300 Ark. 435 (1989) (injunction-related interlocutory review requirements)
- White v. Davis, 352 Ark. 183 (2003) (preservation requirement for rulings not explicit in order)
- McDonald v. Wilcox, 300 Ark. 445 (1989) (burden to obtain a ruling; lack of ruling waives issues on appeal)
- Simons v. Marshall, 369 Ark. 447 (2007) (interlocutory sovereign-immunity review)
- Ark. Tech. Univ. v. Link, 841 Ark. 495 (2000) (jurisdictional immunity concepts)
- Helena-West Helena School Dist. v. Monday, 361 Ark. 82 (2005) (sovereign-immunity analysis in state actions)
- Nucor Holding Corp. v. Rinkines, 326 Ark. 217 (1996) (immunity and jurisdictional considerations)
- Robinson v. Beaumont, 291 Ark. 477 (1987) (sovereign-immunity framework in Arkansas)
- Adams, Univ. of Ark. for Med. Seis. v. Adams, 354 Ark. 21 (2003) (Rule 2(a)(10) interlocutory review for immunity)