Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Quattrocchi
673 F.3d 1105
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Skydive Arizona sues SKYRIDE for false advertising, trademark infringement, and cybersquatting.
- SKYRIDE operates internet/phone advertising for skydiving, selling certificates redeemable at various drop zones.
- SKYRIDE operated Arizona-targeted sites and domains; Skydive Arizona did not advertise with or accept SKYRIDE certificates.
- District court granted partial summary judgment on false advertising; jury awarded damages on remaining claims; court then doubled certain awards.
- Final judgment included statutory cybersquatting damages, enhanced actual damages, and enhanced profits; SKYRIDE challenged these rulings and injunction scope.
- On appeal, court affirms most rulings but reverses the damages enhancement and limits the injunction to Arizona.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred in granting partial summary judgment on false advertising | Skydive Arizona argues Flynn declaration shows materiality | SKYRIDE contends materiality not proven without surveys | No error; materiality shown by Flynn and other evidence. |
| Whether actual damages were properly awarded | Skydive Arizona contends evidence supports damages for goodwill | SKYRIDE argues damages lack precise quantification | Upheld; damages supported by substantial evidence and reasonable inferences. |
| Whether disgorged profits (lost profits) were properly awarded | Skydive Arizona claims legitimate lost profits basis from SKYRIDE conduct | SKYRIDE asserts expert flaws; objections waived | Upheld; Daubert challenges waived; district court did not abuse discretion. |
| Whether damages enhancement was proper under Lanham Act | Skydive Arizona seeks punitive-like enhancement for willfulness | SKYRIDE argues enhancement to punish, not compensate | Reversed; enhancement inappropriate to punish willful conduct. |
| Whether permanent injunction should be nationwide | Skydive Arizona seeks nationwide injunction | No illegal conduct beyond Arizona proven; tailor injunction proper | Affirmed limited injunction to Arizona. |
Key Cases Cited
- DSPT Int'l, Inc. v. Nahum, 624 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010) (damages principles and foreseeability in Lanham Act awards)
- La Quinta Corp. v. Heartland Props. LLC, 603 F.3d 327 (9th Cir. 2010) (proof burden for actual damages; prestige of goodwill evidence)
- Intel Corp. v. Terabyte Int'l, Inc., 6 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 1993) (allowance of reasonable inferences for damages)
- BASF Corp. v. Old World Trading Co., 41 F.3d 1081 (7th Cir. 1994) (damages solely to compensate, not punish; limits on trebled damages)
- Jurgens v. McKasy, 927 F.2d 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (damages enhancement may be punitive, improper in Lanham Act)
- Hemmings v. Tidyman's, Inc., 285 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2002) (grossly excessive damages challenge; sympathy cannot justify)