Filed: Aug. 28, 2002
Latest Update: Apr. 11, 2017
Summary: Opinions of the United 2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-28-2002 Choice Hotels Intl v. Pennave Assoc Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 01-1632 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002 Recommended Citation "Choice Hotels Intl v. Pennave Assoc Inc" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 542. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/542 This decision is brought to you for free
Summary: Opinions of the United 2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-28-2002 Choice Hotels Intl v. Pennave Assoc Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 01-1632 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002 Recommended Citation "Choice Hotels Intl v. Pennave Assoc Inc" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 542. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/542 This decision is brought to you for free a..
More
Opinions of the United
2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-28-2002
Choice Hotels Intl v. Pennave Assoc Inc
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 01-1632
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002
Recommended Citation
"Choice Hotels Intl v. Pennave Assoc Inc" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 542.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/542
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
Nos. 01-1632, 01-1925, and 01-2397
___________
CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
vs.
PENNAVE ASSOCIATES, INC.; DAVID S. MILLER,
David S. Miller, Appellant.
___________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. No. 98-cv-04111)
District Judge: The Honorable Berle M. Schiller
___________
ARGUED JULY 23, 2002
BEFORE: SLOVITER, NYGAARD, and BARRY, Circuit Judges.
(Filed August 28, 2002)
___________
Donald J. Martin, Esq. (Argued)
22 West Airy Street
Norristown, PA 19401
Counsel for Appellant
Cecelia L. Fanelli, Esq. (Argued)
Katten, Muchin, Zavis & Rosenman
575 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Counsel for Appellee
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Following a trial, the District Court concluded that Appellant, David S.
Miller’s use of Choice Hotel’s trademark without its consent violated 15 U.S.C. 1114.
It found that Miller’s use of the Clarion mark was likely to deceive as to the connection
between Miller’s hotel and Choice Hotels in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). The court
also held Miller individually liable for his acts of infringement because no "special or
contractual relationship is required" to hold an individual liable for acts of infringement.
Because Miller failed to maintain and produce accurate records of his profits and losses,
the court exercised its discretion under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a) to award Choice Hotels
$100,000.00 as profits. The court also awarded attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15.S.C.
1117(a) because it found that Miller’s conduct constituted knowing and willful
infringement. Miller now appeals. He contends in numerous issues that the District
Court erred both in awarding damages and attorneys fees to the Appellee.
We apply plenary review to the District Court’s conclusions of law with
respect to the Lanham Act claim. Express Servs., Inc. v. Careers Express Staffing Servs,
176 F.3d 183, 185 (3d Cir. 1999). We review factual findings regarding the Lanham Act
violations for clear error. Id. We review the District Court’s finding that this was an
"exceptional case," and thus merited an award of attorneys’ fees, for an abuse of
discretion. Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v Securacom, Inc.,
224 F.3d 273, 279 (3d Cir.
2000). The method by which attorneys’ fees were awarded is a question of law to which
we apply plenary review. Loughner v. Univ. of Pittsburgh,
260 F.3d 173, 177 (3d Cir.
2001). We review the District Court’s award of equitable remedies for an abuse of
discretion. Voest-Alpine Trading USA Corp. v. Vantage Steel Corp.,
919 F.2d 206, 211
(3d Cir. 1990)
As noted, this is an action for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C.
1051 et seq., unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), and unfair competition under
state law. The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1121, 28 U.S.C.
1338, and 28 U.S.C. 1367. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. We
will affirm.
DISCUSSION
The facts and procedural history are well known to the parties, and we see
no benefit in recounting them in any detail greater than necessary to explain our decision
to the parties. We note at the outset that Miller’s first argument seems to confuse the
issue of liability with the issue of damages. He argues that there was no proof of loss,
which is a damages issue, and that there was no proof of confusion, which is a liability
issue. The answer, however, is in the text of the statute itself, which does not require that
actual confusion be proved for an award of damages. Use of a mark which is "likely to
cause confusion" is all that is required by 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(A).
Miller next argues that Choice failed to prove actual damages, and that
absent evidence of actual damage, there is no right to an award of damages or profits.
Miller’s argument again falls before the language of the statute. It is clear from the
statute itself that an award of profits is not conditioned upon an award of damages. The
statute clearly provides that a prevailing party can recover three distinct types of awards,
which are enumerated as "(1) defendant’s profits, (2) any damages sustained by the
plaintiff, and (3) the costs of the action." There is no statutory language limiting awards
of profits only to those situations where damages are also awarded. Miller’s argument
that "[a]bsent evidence of actual damage, there is no right to an award of damages or
profits" is simply wrong.
Next, section 1117(a) of the Lanham Act permits a district court to award
attorneys’ fees "in exceptional cases." Miller challenges the District Court’s finding that
this is one of those "exceptional cases." Considering that we review its findings for clear
error and its award for an abuse of discretion, we only need note that the record
overwhelmingly supports the District Court’s award. Without recapitulating all the facts,
we merely note that (1) Miller received numerous letters from Choice informing him of
his infringing conduct, but he ignored them; and (2) Miller failed to comply with the
District Court’s temporary restraining order within the appropriate time period. Under
these circumstances, the District Court’s finding that this is an "exceptional case" is more
than amply supported. After an extensive review of the record, we conclude that each of
the District Court’s findings is supported, and that the District Court’s fee decision is
within the limits of its discretion.
CONCLUSION
In sum, after thoroughly examining the issues, hearing oral argument on the
cause, and following an extensive review of the record, we conclude that there is no merit
to any of Appellant’s issues, and will affirm.
_________________________
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Richard L. Nygaard
Circuit Judge