Spice Merchants Entities Corp. v. Pretty Colorado, LLC
1:24-cv-00371
D. Colo.Jul 7, 2025Background
- The case is about disputes between franchisor Spice Merchants Entities Corp. (owned by Lisa Freeman) and former franchisee Pretty Colorado LLC (owned by Corine Winslow) over alleged breaches of a franchise agreement involving trademarks related to spice and tea stores.
- Prior court proceedings, including a preliminary injunction hearing, focused on alleged breaches, trademark violations, and rights to occupy the store property.
- The court granted partial summary judgment in April 2025, dismissing the plaintiffs’ federal claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition, finding no likelihood of confusion or protectable trade dress.
- Plaintiffs moved to exclude the testimony of defendants' legal expert, Steven Weigler, a trademark attorney, arguing his opinions usurp the judge’s function by offering legal conclusions.
- The motion now centers on whether Mr. Weigler's expert testimony is relevant or permissible given that only the breach of contract claim remains, and his expertise is primarily trademark law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance of Weigler’s opinions post-summary judgment | Opinions 4-6 are irrelevant since trademark claims have been dismissed | Testimony still relevant to franchise agreement’s trademark aspects | Opinions 4-6 excluded as irrelevant |
| Permissibility of expert legal conclusions | Weigler usurps judge’s role by stating legal conclusions | Testimony is necessary to show franchise agreement involved invalid trademark | Excluded: Opinions are legal conclusions/invade the court’s province |
| Admissibility of explaining trademark prosecution process | Not specifically contested | Expert context on trademark prosecution would assist the court | Allowed: Limited testimony on process explaining trademark application/candor to USPTO |
| Characterization of plaintiff’s conduct as fraud | Stating application was fraud oversteps permissible expert opinion | Needed to argue franchise agreement based on invalid trademark | Excluded: Not permitted to opine plaintiff committed fraud |
Key Cases Cited
- Specht v. Jensen, 853 F.2d 805 (10th Cir. 1988) (holding that an expert must not define the legal parameters for the trier of fact)
- United States v. Bedford, 536 F.3d 1148 (10th Cir. 2008) (finding experts may reference law but not offer legal conclusions)
- United States v. McIver, 470 F.3d 550 (4th Cir. 2006) (summarizing rules on expert legal conclusions)
- United States v. Dazey, 403 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2005) (permissible expert ultimate-issue testimony must assist jury not supplant its judgment)
- United States v. Buchanan, 787 F.2d 477 (10th Cir. 1986) (allowing expert testimony on law’s application to facts with adequate explanation)
- United States v. Logan, 641 F.2d 860 (10th Cir. 1981) (permitting expert classification testimony under law)