Arkansas Lottery Commission v. Alpha Marketing
2013 Ark. 232
| Ark. | 2013Background
- Alpha Marketing sued the Arkansas Lottery Commission seeking declaratory relief that Alpha’s marks Arkansas Lottery, Arkansas Lotto, and Lottery Arkansas are valid and exclusively usable, plus injunctive relief and lost profits from alleged infringement.
- The Commission asserted sovereign immunity as a defense, after previously having been denied on a motion to dismiss without a ruling on immunity.
- The circuit court denied the Commission’s motion to dismiss Alpha’s amended complaint, and the Commission appealed on sovereign-immunity grounds.
- On appeal, the supreme court majority held that Alpha failed to show exceptions to sovereign immunity, reversed, and dismissed the suit.
- The decision analyzes whether Alpha pled sufficient facts under exceptions (ultra vires, unconstitutional taking, waiver) and whether the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides a limited waiver, ultimately concluding sovereign immunity bars Alpha’s claims.
- Dissenting and concurring opinions argue waiver occurred because the Commission sought specific relief and thus cannot use sovereign immunity as a shield.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Commission’s action constitute waiver of sovereign immunity? | Alpha argues the Commission sought affirmative relief. | Ark. Lottery Com'n contends waiver does not apply. | Yes, waiver occurred; the circuit court did not err. |
| Are any exceptions to sovereign immunity applicable to Alpha’s claims? | Alpha relies on ultra vires, taking, waiver exceptions. | Commission asserts none apply to monetary damages or takings. | No applicable exception bars the suit. |
| Does the APA provide a constitutional-type waiver for this case? | Alpha relies on APA ordering action by agency. | APA does not fit rule-making/adjudication here and does not authorize the relief sought. | APA does not apply. |
| Is Alpha’s takings claim viable against a state agency for trademark infringement? | Ongoing infringement constitutes a continuing taking. | Takings claim not recognized for monetary damages against state; only injunctive relief limited. | Takings exception does not apply; sovereign immunity bars the claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- LandsnPulaski, LLC v. Ark. Dep’t of Corr., 372 Ark. 40, 269 S.W.3d 793 (2007) (waiver when state seeks specific relief; not every relief labeled ‘all other’)
- Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Ark. State Highway Comm’n, 353 Ark. 721, 120 S.W.3d 50 (2003) (sovereign-immunity analysis; exceptions and waiver discussed)
- Ark. Tech Univ. v. Link, 341 Ark. 495, 17 S.W.3d 809 (2000) (sovereign-immunity framework; state actions affecting treasury)
- Seth v. St. Edward Mercy Med. Ctr., 375 Ark. 413, 291 S.W.3d 179 (2009) (charitable immunity; distinct from sovereign immunity waiver rules)
- Ark. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality v. Al-Madhoun, 374 Ark. 28, 285 S.W.3d 654 (2008) (APA exception discussion related to rule-making/adjudication)
- Ark. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality v. Oil Producers of Ark., 2009 Ark. 297, 318 S.W.3d 573 (2009) (ultra vires, capricious acts; limits on injunctive relief versus damages)
- Ark. Lottery Comm’n v. Alpha Mktg., 2012 Ark. 23, 386 S.W.3d 400 (2012) (interlocutory appeal; immunity ruling and waiver discussion (basis for appeal))