Belk, Incorporated v. Meyer Corporation, U.S.
679 F.3d 146
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Meyer sued Belk for trade dress infringement of Anolon Advanced and for North Carolina UDTPA claims following Belk’s sale of a Biltmore line.
- A nine‑day jury trial awarded Meyer $420,000 for trade dress, with the NC UDTPA verdict trebling damages to $1,260,000.
- Belk appealed challenging sufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary rulings, UDTPA rulings, and damages, among other issues.
- Belk failed to file a postverdict Rule 50(b) or Rule 59 motion; the district court nonetheless trebled and entered judgment.
- The Fourth Circuit held Belk forfeited the sufficiency challenge under Rule 50(b) but retained review of other preserved, purely legal issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Belk preserved sufficiency of the evidence challenge | Belk argues evidence supports infringement. | Belk contends evidence insufficient for trade dress distinctiveness/secondary meaning. | Belk forfeited the sufficiency challenge under Rule 50(b). |
| Whether the district court erred in evidentiary rulings on the Didow survey | Didow qualified as an expert; survey admissible and weight for the jury. | Didow lacked trade dress survey expertise; survey methodologically flawed. | District court did not abuse discretion; Didow properly qualified and survey admissible. |
| Whether the UDTPA verdict and treble damages are proper under NC law | Belk’s conduct was unfair/deceptive causing Meyer injury; treble damages appropriate. | NC statutes do not apply to unintentional infringement; damages improper. | UDTPA findings upheld; treble damages under NC §75‑16 affirmed. |
| Whether the damages award should be limited or modified | Belk’s profits properly measured as damages and trebled; equitable factors unnecessary. | Equitable factors under §1117(a) should limit profits; no pleading of actual damages. | Damages based on profits trebled under NC §75‑16 affirmed; Polo Fashions used as measure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (Supreme Court 2006) (failure to move under Rule 50(b) forecloses sufficiency review)
- Polo Fashions, Inc. v. Craftex, Inc., 816 F.2d 145 (4th Cir. 1987) (profits can be a rough measure of damages treble under NC §75-16)
- Lyons Partnership, L.P. v. Costumes, 243 F.3d 789 (4th Cir. 2001) (intent irrelevant to §75-1.1 UDTPA analysis; damages interplay)
- ABT Bldg. Prods. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 472 F.3d 99 (4th Cir. 2006) (unfair/deceptive standard; multifactor test for UDTPA)
- Sideshow, Inc. v. Mammoth Records, Inc., 751 F. Supp. 78 (E.D.N.C. 1990) (statutory interpretation of §75-1.1 scope for innocent infringement)
- Miller v. Premier Corp., 608 F.2d 973 (4th Cir. 1979) (preservation principles for Rule 50(a) motions and renewal)
- Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 1999) (expert admissibility and cross-examination standards)