Revelry Vintners LLC v. Mackay Restaurant Management Group Inc
4:21-cv-05110
| E.D. Wash. | Jun 3, 2024Background
- Revelry Vintners, LLC sued multiple defendants alleging trademark infringement related to the use of the "Revelers Club" branding in connection with wine and hospitality services.
- The dispute involves both claimed lost profits and alleged unjust enrichment (disgorgement) as potential damages.
- Plaintiff retained Douglas McDaniel as a damages expert and Deborah Steinthal as a marketing/branding industry expert.
- Defendants moved to exclude the testimony of both experts, raising challenges to their qualifications, methodologies, and the relevance of their opinions under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
- The court reviewed the motions to exclude expert witnesses and a motion by plaintiff to strike defendants’ reply, with all matters submitted on the briefs.
- The decision addresses admissibility of expert testimony prior to trial, reserving some determinations regarding scope until causation and merits are tried.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of McDaniel's Testimony (Damages) | McDaniel's expertise and methods are reliable | Methodology conflates lost profits/disgorgement; assumes all sales are ill-gotten | DENIED (testimony can be challenged at trial) |
| McDaniel's Analysis of Lost Profits | Quantifies lost profits from infringement | Only true lost profits shown is a single wine pallet sale | Mostly conflated; only pallet sale is clear lost profit |
| McDaniel's Analysis of Disgorgement | Calculates defendants’ profits linked to mark | Does not connect profits to actual confusion or infringement | Allowed; methodology is testable, not for summary exclusion |
| Steinthal’s Testimony (Branding/Confusion) | Offers specialized marketing/branding expertise | Lacks trademark expertise; offers legal conclusions; not helpful | PARTIALLY GRANTED; limited to market/channel context |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (establishes standards for admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (expands Daubert gatekeeping to all expert testimony)
- United States v. Diaz, 876 F.3d 1194 (experts may not opine on ultimate legal conclusions)
- Cooper v. Brown, 510 F.3d 870 (expert testimony must advance a material aspect of the case)
- Maier Brewing Co. v. Fleischmann Distilling Corp., 390 F.2d 117 (lost profits can be demonstrated by showing diversion of customers in direct competition)
- Hangarter v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998 (Rule 702 permits broad admission of qualified expert testimony)