707 F. App'x 138
4th Cir.2017Background
- Valador, Inc. sued HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., and Valve Corporation alleging Lanham Act trademark and unfair-competition claims based on defendants’ “HTC Vive” product and related domain names, and an ACPA cybersquatting claim.
- The district court imposed discovery sanctions excluding certain evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 for Valador’s discovery violations.
- The court excluded Valador’s expert testimony under Rule 702 and Daubert.
- The court denied Valador’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross-motion, entering final judgment for defendants on trademark infringement, unfair competition, and cybersquatting claims.
- Valador appealed the Final Judgment and challenged the Sanctions Order, the Expert Order, and the Summary Judgment Decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sanctions under Rule 37 (exclusion of evidence) | Sanctions were improper and exclusion was too severe | Sanctions were appropriate for discovery violations | Court did not abuse discretion; sanctions affirmed |
| Exclusion of expert under Rule 702/Daubert | Expert testimony should be admitted | Expert unreliable/unsupported; exclusion appropriate | Court did not abuse discretion; expert excluded |
| Trademark infringement / unfair competition (Lanham Act) | Defendants’ use of “Vive” infringes Valador’s registered marks and misleads consumers | No likelihood of confusion or trademark violation | De novo review: summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| ACPA cybersquatting (domain names) | HTC’s domain use constitutes unlawful cybersquatting | Domain use not actionable under ACPA | De novo review: summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Foundation for Advancement, 155 F.3d 500 (4th Cir.) (standard: abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 37 sanctions)
- Distaff, Inc. v. Springfield Contracting Corp., 984 F.2d 108 (4th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review for exclusion of expert testimony under Rule 702)
- Synergistic Int’l, LLC v. Korman, 470 F.3d 162 (4th Cir.) (de novo review standard for trademark/unfair-competition summary judgment)
- Virtual Works, Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 238 F.3d 264 (4th Cir.) (de novo review standard for ACPA/cybersquatting summary judgment)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court) (gatekeeping standard for admissibility of expert testimony)