Insignia then initiated a separate suit against plaintiff and Logo Promotions for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, cyber piracy, false advertising, and civil conspiracy. Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, claiming breach of a partnership agreement, and defendant counterclaimed for breach of the same partnership agreement. Plaintiff owned AIA-LOGO! Promotions, LLC and defendant owned Insignia Marketing, Inc. Streamline Manufacturing, Inc." on Justia Law View "Streamline Production Systems, Inc. The court otherwise affirmed the judgment.
#Fifth circuit court of appeals landmark trial#
The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the royalty award where, given the limited nature of the expert testimony on royalty damages and the other evidence presented at trial on the nature of Streamline Manufacturing's infringement and customers, the royalty award does not bear a rational relationship to the infringing use the unjust enrichment award was not supported by sufficient evidence and, because the court vacated the royalty and unjust enrichment awards for insufficient evidence, the court also vacated the exemplary damages award. The district court denied Streamline Manufacturing's motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), as well as its renewed JMOL, or in the alternative, for a new trial.
![fifth circuit court of appeals landmark fifth circuit court of appeals landmark](https://gray-kltv-prod.cdn.arcpublishing.com/resizer/SQBGsjI9TrJPWjjB4wnF_rMHfrU=/1200x675/smart/filters:quality(85)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/gray/2GW6DWLODVHKXAQ3BADR5J6QVI.jpg)
The parties stipulated to an injunction and a jury returned a verdict finding that Streamline Manufacturing infringed on Streamline Production's valid trademark in its name and awarded damages for lost royalties, unjust enrichment, and exemplary damages. Streamline Production filed a trademark infringement suit against Streamline Manufacturing, seeking damages under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.