Nicholas Scoyni v. Daniel Salvador, 20-35123

Plaintiff Nicholas Scoyni sued over use of the service mark "Off-Spec Solutions," claiming an oral contract granting him rights and asserting defamation and trademark claims; defendants counterclaimed or defended asserting prior use and ownership.
Defendants registered the assumed business name and an LLC in Idaho in August 2012 and produced receipts and Facebook advertisements showing use of the name in commerce prior to 2016.
Scoyni had a federal service-mark registration but produced minimal evidence of use in commerce: a magnetic sign on a vehicle and office door and two affidavits whose deponents, at deposition, could not confirm awareness of the "Off-Spec Solutions" name.
Defendants sent a cease-and-desist letter and made statements to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board; the district court found those communications protected by the litigation privilege.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on breach of contract, defamation, and trademark claims; it voided Scoyni’s registration ab initio for failure to use the mark in commerce, denied Scoyni’s default-judgment attempt, and awarded defendants fees and costs under Idaho law and Rule 54.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of an oral contract for mark use	Scoyni: parties formed an oral agreement to use the mark	Defendants: no meeting of the minds; no enforceable contract	No oral contract; summary judgment for defendants (no mutual assent)
Defamation	Scoyni: defendants communicated defamatory information about him	Defendants: communications (cease-and-desist, TTAB) are privileged litigation communications	Held for defendants; litigation privilege bars defamation claim
Trademark validity / use in commerce	Scoyni: registration creates presumption of a valid mark	Defendants: Scoyni rebutted; he did not use the mark in commerce; defendants used it earlier	Court held Scoyni’s registration void ab initio for failure to use in commerce; defendants had prior use
Default judgment procedure	Scoyni: sought default judgment	Defendants: timely answered after stay; Scoyni failed to follow Rule 55 process	Denied; Scoyni failed to obtain clerk’s entry of default and did not follow Rule 55 steps
Attorney fees and costs	Scoyni: challenges timeliness, jurisdiction after notice of appeal, and applicability	Defendants: timely moved; Idaho Code §12-120(3) applies to commercial transaction; costs allowed under Rule 54	Fees and costs awarded to defendants; court retained jurisdiction to decide fees despite notice of appeal

Hoffman v. S V Co., 628 P.2d 218 (Idaho 1981) (mutual assent required for contract formation)
Barry v. Pac. W. Const., Inc., 103 P.3d 440 (Idaho 2004) (meeting-of-the-minds principle)
Verity v. USA Today, 436 P.3d 653 (Idaho 2019) (elements of defamation claim)
Dickinson Frozen Foods, Inc. v. J.R. Simplot Co., 434 P.3d 1275 (Idaho 2019) (litigation privilege for communications)
Chance v. Pac-Tel Teletrac Inc., 242 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2001) (presumption from federal registration rebuttable by nonuse)
Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (two-step default judgment procedure under Rule 55)
Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 718 F.2d 955 (9th Cir. 1983) (district court retains jurisdiction to award fees after notice of appeal)
Mabe v. San Bernardino Cnty., Dep’t of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001) (waiver of issues not raised below)
Clayson v. Zebe, 280 P.3d 731 (Idaho 2012) (definition and applicability of "commercial transaction" for fee statutes)
Great Plains Equip., Inc. v. Nw. Pipeline Corp., 36 P.3d 218 (Idaho 2001) (commercial-transaction analysis for fee entitlement)