447 F. App'x 814
9th Cir.2011Background
- Campagnolo S.r.l. sued FSA and Tien Hsin for false advertising under Lanham Act § 43(a).
- District court granted summary judgment in favor of Tien Hsin; jury returned verdict for FSA; district court denied JMOL and a new trial; denied attorneys’ fees.
- On appeal, Campagnolo and FSA challenge; court affirms district court’s rulings.
- JMOL challenge: Campagnolo argues evidence supported only one conclusion contrary to the verdict; district court denied JMOL.
- New trial challenge: district court did not abuse discretion; verdict not against the weight of the evidence; Tien Hsin’s liability deemed moot.
- FSA appeal: district court properly denied attorneys’ fees; claims not groundless or pursued in bad faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether JMOL was proper | Campagnolo contends only one reasonable conclusion favored its position. | FSA argues substantial evidence supports the jury verdict. | No JMOL; substantial evidence supports verdict. |
| Whether a new trial was warranted | Campagnolo argues the verdict weight favors its claim. | FSA asserts the weight of evidence supports the jury’s decision. | Denied; verdict not against the clear weight of the evidence. |
| Whether Tien Hsin’s liability is moot | Campagnolo sought liability of Tien Hsin as alter ego or direct participant. | FSA/Tien Hsin contend no liability given Campagnolo failed on false advertising claims. | Moot; once Campagnolo failed on false advertising claims, Tien Hsin has no liability. |
| Whether evidentiary rulings were erroneous | Campagnolo challenged admission of certain production model documents. | FSA argued no abuse in admitting probative model documents. | No abuse of discretion; admissibility was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- E.E.O.C. v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 581 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2009) (JMOL standard; only one reasonable conclusion sustains verdict)
- Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 1997) (elements of Lanham Act claim; substantial evidence standard)
- Pavao v. Pagay, 307 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2002) (substantial evidence supports jury verdict)
- Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007) (weight of the evidence standard for new trials)
- Interstellar Starship Serv., Ltd. v. Epix, Inc., 184 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1999) (fee-shifting in Lanham Act cases; not groundless)