Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

Improperly Canceled Auto Insurance Policy Means Insurer Has Duty to Defend Driver in Accident, Appeals Court Rules

November 16, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

In an unusual Illinois insurance fraud lawsuit, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled that two insureds are entitled to attorney fees, sanctions and other relief under section 155 of the Illinois Insurance Code. Siwek v. White, No. 1-07-2600 (Ill. 1st Feb. 27, 2009) pits drivers Christine Siweck and Jerrold Erickson against their former auto insurer, which the court found improperly canceled their insurance policy.

Siwek was in an auto accident while using Erickson’s vehicle in the summer of 2003. Erickson was insured by American Access Casualty Company, with Siweck on the policy as a co-operator. They notified the state of Illinois of the accident and named American as their insurer, but American told the state in September of that year that the policy had been canceled in May of that year. This led IDOT to certify both Siweck and Erickson as drivers who had been involved in an accident without auto insurance. At a hearing, Erickson successfully defended his license. Siweck testified at the same hearing that she had no notice of cancellation and presented paperwork showing that American had issued her a new declaration of coverage on the day after the supposed cancellation.

The state suspended Siweck’s driver’s license nonetheless. Siweck and Erickson sued for administrative review of the decision to suspend Siweck’s license and declaratory judgments against American. They sought a declaration that their policy was improperly canceled, meaning Siweck was insured at the time of the accident.

Scope of Injunctions Enforcing Restrictive Employment Covenants Must Be Clear, Fourth District Decides

November 13, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Our Illinois noncompete clause attorneys recently noted an important case addressing the standards for a preliminary injunction in Illinois lawsuits over covenants not to compete. In Lifetec, Inc. v. Edwards, No. 4-07-0300 (Ill. 4th Nov. 6, 2007), Lifetec sued former salesman Peter Edwards for breach of three restrictive covenants in his employment contract. It also sued his wife, Carol Edwards, and new employer, Patterson Medical Supply Inc., for tortious interference with the contract. Trial court granted Lifetec a preliminary injunction, and Edwards filed the instant appeal.

Lifetec sells medical devices and products. When Edwards began working there as a salesman, he signed a contract agreeing not to:

Compete with Lifetec, or sell or lease the products he had been assigned during the last 18 months of his employment, or competing products, within the territory assigned to him in the last 18 months of his employment.
Directly or indirectly solicit purchase or lease of the product or competing products within the same territory.
Work as a distributor or sales representative for any manufacturer that was a client of Lifetec, or for a competitor that also handles the client’s products, within the last 12 months.

The restrictive covenant applied for 24 months after the employment agreement was terminated.

Edwards left Lifetec for Patterson, a larger competitor, after 10 years. According to the opinion, he knew the move could cause Lifetec to sue and gave Patterson a copy of the agreement, but Patterson said it would take care of him in any lawsuit. Several months later, he admitted to a former colleague that he was working for Patterson. Months later, Lifetec sued him for breach of contract and requested a preliminary injunction. At an evidentiary hearing, evidence was introduced that Edwards had solicited Lifetec customers, but he said all Lifetec customers were also Patterson customers because the bulk of Patterson’s business was from national contracts. On the basis of the evidence at this hearing, the trial court granted a preliminary injunction stopping Edwards from violating the contract.

Edwards appealed, asking only for a decision on whether there was enough evidence to support the granting of the injunction. The appeals court said there was. The question, the court wrote, was whether Edwards had used protectable confidential information gained at Lifetec for his own gain. Lifetec contended that its “open quotes” to buyers constituted protectable information, although not all open quotes necessarily resulted in sales. The court took it one step further, saying the way those quotes were calculated was the real confidential information, as the quotes themselves were not secret once submitted to customers. Edwards’ knowledge of the reasoning behind the bids could give Patterson an advantage in the competitive medical supply industry. The defendants’ arguments that Lifetec should have alleged that Edwards misappropriated its trade secrets also fail, the court wrote, since Lifetec is making no such claim. All of this is sufficient to raise fair questions of fact, the court said, so an injunction was proper until the merits of the case could be decided.

A special concurrence filed by Presiding Justice Robert Steigmann agreed with the outcome, but said the court was incorrect to use the “legitimate business interests” test. This test is three decades old, the justice wrote, but the Illinois Supreme Court had never embraced it and in fact failed to use it at all in its 2006 decision in Mohanty v. St. John Heart Clinic, S.C., 225 Ill. 2d 52, 866 N.E.2d 85 (2006). Because of this, he wrote, the court should have stopped its analysis after finding that the time and territory restraints in the covenant were reasonable. The majority noted, however, that the parties made no argument on this basis.

First District Says Delaware Law Controls Dispute Over Returning Overpayments From Trust Fund

November 11, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

As Illinois limited partnership litigation attorneys, we were pleased to note a recent ruling clearing up a potential conflict between Illinois and Delaware limited partnership law. Delaware law time-bars claims in a limited partnership dispute even though Illinois law typically controls statute of limitation issues, the First District Court of Appeal ruled. Freeman v. Williamson, No. 1-07-2058 (Ill. 1st Dist. June 24, 2008). The case is a victory for members of the Freeman family, who are former investors in a fund set up as a Delaware limited partnership. The plaintiffs invested in the Lipper Fixed Income Fund in 1993 and withdrew in 1999.

In 2002, the fund’s general partner realized that a former manager had overstated its returns, leading to overpayments to partners. It liquidated the partnership and appointed Richard Williamson as the trustee of the fund. In 2006, Williamson demanded that the Freemans return those overpayments. In response, the Freemans filed a lawsuit in Illinois, asking for a declaratory judgment that they were not obligated to repay the overpayments because Delaware law time-barred any claim by Williamson. They also argued that the partnership agreement for the fund specifically said partners had no obligation to restore a negative balance in the fund’s capital account. Williamson countersued for unjust enrichment, conversion and money had and received.

The trial court granted the declaratory judgment and dismissed all of Williamson’s claims with prejudice, all on summary judgment. It agreed that the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act applied to both the partnership agreement and Williamson’s counterclaims, and that its three-year limit for bringing claims had already expired. Williamson appealed to the First District on all of the claims but conversion.

On appeal, the court started by noting that the sole issue at stake was whether the Delaware Act applies to the dispute. Williamson argued that it did not, but the First District found this unpersuasive. The partnership agreement expressly incorporates a relevant section of the Delaware Act, the court said, and also explicitly says the same law governs the partnership aspects of the agreement. Under the Delaware Act, partners are liable for knowingly accepting payments that make the partnership unable to meet its obligations to creditors — but if they innocently accept such payments, they are not liable. Furthermore, the law applies a three-year limit to any liability “under this chapter or other applicable law” for receiving such payments, regardless of whether it was received knowingly. Thus, the court said, the three-year period applies as long as the time limitation in the Delaware Act applies to the payments the plaintiffs received.

The court rejected Williamson’s argument that Illinois law, which would not time-bar his claims, applies because the relevant part of the Delaware Act is a statute of limitations. Using Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 325, 770 N.E.2d 177 (2002), the trustee argued that the Illinois law applies when a statute of limitations is at issue because a statute of limitations is procedural rather than substantive. The plaintiffs argued that the provision is actually a statute of repose, a substantive issue that places the matter under Delaware law through the limited partnership agreement. The court agreed, saying that the Delaware Act extinguishes liability regardless of whether plaintiffs know their cause of action, making it an issue of substantive rights.

Finally, the court rejected Williamson’s argument that the partnership agreement does not apply. It agreed that the plaintiffs are also wrong to argue that the sections on partners’ obligations apply to them, because they are former partners and the agreement clearly differs between former and current partners. However, the court said there was no question that the distributions the plaintiffs received were made pursuant to the terms of the agreement. And again, the agreement specifically says the Delaware Act applies. Thus, First District said the Delaware Act applies even though the plaintiffs are now former partners. It affirmed the summary judgment rulings by the trial court.

First District Rules Plaintiff Not Entitled to Punitives in Noncompete Clause Lawsuit

November 6, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

An interesting case involving enforcement of an employment contract’s restrictive covenant was recently noted by our Illinois covenant not to compete attorneys. Cambridge Engineering Inc. v. Mercury Partners 90 BI, Inc., No. 1-06-0798 (Ill. 1st Dec. 7, 2007). The suit stems from an earlier lawsuit concluded in Missouri in 2001, in which Cambridge Engineering Inc. successfully sued former employee Gregory Degar and his new employer, Brucker Company (legally Mercury Partners 90 BI), to enforce a covenant not to compete signed by Degar. Cambridge then filed this suit against Brucker to recover punitive damages and attorney fees. Cambridge and Brucker compete in the residential and business heating market in the Midwest.

Degar worked at Cambridge as a sales representative starting in 1996, and signed a contract including noncompete and nonsolicitation covenants. The contract restricted him from competing in any way with Cambridge, or soliciting its employees or customers, anywhere in the United States or Canada, for 24 months after leaving. He was terminated in 2001 and was hired by Brucker about a month later as an inside support person rather than a salesperson. Nonetheless, he admitted to using customer contacts developed at Cambridge. Cambridge sued Deger, but not Brucker, in St. Louis and was granted a permanent injunction enforcing the noncompete clause. (At that time, Brucker fired Degar.)

Cambridge then sued Brucker in Illinois for compensatory and punitive damages, for tortious interference with contract. The parties stipulated to limit compensatory damages to attorney fees but said nothing about the punitive damages. The trial court directed a verdict against Cambridge on punitive damages, saying Cambridge hadn’t proven that Brucker’s actions were so outrageous that punitive damages were appropriate. At trial, the president of Cambridge testified that the company believed the contract would prevent Degar from holding any job, even a janitorial position, with any competitor, including in areas where Cambridge does not do business. The jury found for Cambridge on compensatory damages in the amount of $50,000, but Brucker successfully moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the basis that the noncompetition clause was overly broad and unenforceable. Cambridge appealed both judgments against it.

The analysis by the First started by noting that the dispute centered around whether the covenant not to compete was unenforceable under Illinois law. Cambridge argued that the covenant was reasonable on both geographic and activity (despite testimony disputing this), and that the trial court improperly excluded testimony that would show this reasonableness. The court disagreed on all counts. The geographic scope was unreasonable, the court wrote, because it restricted Degar from taking a job with a competitor anywhere in Canada even though Cambridge only had a small amount of business in Canada. This restriction did nothing to protect Cambridge from competitors gaining unfair advantage at its expense, the court wrote. And the evidence Cambridge said was incorrectly excluded would not have changed the court’s decision. Thus, the scope of the covenant was indeed unreasonable.

It next examined the question of the activities prohibited by the noncompete clause, which turned on the interpretation of the contract. However, the court found that the plain language of the contract supports Brucker’s assertion that the contract was overly broad: that Degar may not “engage in any activity for or on behalf of Employer’s competitors,” a phrase that could theoretically bar Degar from taking a job filing papers for a competitor. Furthermore, testimony from Cambridge’s president at trial confirmed this interpretation; he “agreed with counsel’s contention that the St. Louis action was brought to prevent Degar from working for a competitor in any capacity.” Thus, the clause was overly broad and not reasonable, and the trial court’s decision on that issue was also correct.

Promissory Note Holders May Sue Estate to Collect on Debts Due After Death, Appeals Court Rules

November 4, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Our Illinois partnership dispute attorneys noted with interest a recent case addressing the obligations of deceased partners’ estates to honor a debt not yet due before the death. In In re Estate of Gallagher, No. 1-07-1744 (Ill. 1st Dist. June 30, 2008), the First District Court of Appeal ruled that a trial court should not have dismissed the creditors’ claim against the estate of Robert E. Gallagher. Gallagher was managing partner for several companies — referred to collectively as G&H Entities in the opinion — and the petitioners are former partners, shareholders and members of G&H Entities.

Gallagher issued promissory notes to the petitioners are part of a settlement of underlying litigation, in which he agreed to buy out their share of the companies. As part of this settlement, petitioners released Gallagher from all liability except “any claims arising out of or related to the rights and obligations reflected in this Agreement or documents created in connection with it.” Gallagher died May 13, 2005, before the promissory notes were fully paid. His estate continued to make payments, which the petitioners accepted. However, they also filed suit against the estate to get the balance of the payments owed. The trial court dismissed their claim, believing it was barred by Sec. 2-619 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure.

On appeal, Gallagher’s estate argued that the promissory notes were not yet due and thus, the estate had not yet defaulted on them. That makes the claims contingent, it said, which violates the rule of law that claims not yet due cannot be contingent. However, the First District quickly dismissed that argument. It pointed out that In re Estate of Mackey, 139 Ill. App. 3d 126, 128, 487 N.E.2d 81 (1985) held that a contingent claim depends on “the uncertain occurrence of a future event… which is not under the control of either party” That was not the case here, the court said — liability on the notes was not contingent on a future event.

The court moved on to considering whether Gallagher’s estate can be held liable on the claims. The petitioners argued that Illinois law makes Gallagher jointly liable for the companies’ debts as a partner in G&H Entities, which makes the estate liable. To address that, the court turned to the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling in Sternberg Dredging Co. v. Estate of Sternberg, 10 Ill. 2d 328, 140 N.E.2d 125 (1957), a similar case except that the promissory notes were already due. In Sternberg, the state Supreme Court held that creditors may make their claims against deceased partners for debts owed by the partnership. This makes it clear, the First District said, that Gallagher’s estate can be held liable for the promissory notes. Furthermore, it said, Illinois partnership law backs it up by holding that the death of a partner dissolves the partnership, that dissolution does not discharge partners’ liability, and that a deceased partner’s individual property is liable for partnership obligations.

The appeals court then dismissed the estate’s claim that the release Gallagher and the petitioners signed took away Gallagher’s individual liability. As already noted, the court said, Illinois partnership law holds partners jointly liable for debts taken on by the partnership — so claims that Gallagher cannot be held individually liable are not valid. Furthermore, the court said, the release plainly carves out an exception for claims arising out of the promissory note agreement. It is undisputed that the instant claim arises out of that agreement, the court wrote, and thus Gallagher must be liable.

Finally, the court dismissed the estate’s argument that the petitioners impliedly discharged the debt when they accepted partial payment from the estate. It cited a 115-year-old case, Hayward v. Burke, 151 Ill. 121 (1894), in which a partner in a bank died before debts on a certificate of deposit came due. As in this case, the creditor accepted partial payments from the living partners’ new firm. The estate of the deceased partner argued that this impliedly agreed that the new firm was liable for the debt. The court disagreed, holding that the mere fact that a creditor accepted payments was not enough to absolve the deceased partner from his responsibilities.

The First District took its cue from Hayward in the instant case, holding that Gallagher’s estate was not released from liability just because the petitioners accepted partial payment. Thus, the court reversed the dismissal of the case and remanded it back to trial court for consideration of the reinstated claims.

Hardship to Former Employee Should Be Considered Outside Motion to Dismiss, First District Rules

October 30, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

A First District Court of Appeal ruling had an interesting lesson for our Chicago noncompete clause attorneys. In Baird and Warner Residential Sales Inc. v. Mazzone, No. 1-07-2179 (Aug. 15, 2008), the First ruled that a trial court needed more evidence in a dispute about a covenant not to compete before it could correctly grant a motion to dismiss. The case arose when Baird & Warner Residential Sales sued former employee Patricia Mazzone and her new employer, Midwest Realty Ventures (doing business as Prudential Preferred Properties). Both real estate companies have multiple branches and more than 1,000 employees in the Chicagoland area.

Mazzone was office manager for B&W’s Lincoln Park office for about 11 years before leaving for Prudential. During that time, she signed a contract that included a covenant not to solicit services from any B&W employees or independent contractors, or people who had left those jobs within the last six months, for up to a year after leaving. This contract contained a severability clause, and the “preface” to the contract specified that it applied “regarding the Lincoln Park office,” although the restrictive covenant referred to “Company.” In 2007, Mazzone resigned from her job and took another running Prudential’s Michigan Avenue office. About a month later, B&W sued for a temporary restraining order and injunction seeking to enforce the covenant and keep Mazzone and Prudential from soliciting B&W employees, alleging breach of contract by Mazzone, tortious interference with contract by Prudential, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage by both parties.

After an injunction and expedited discovery, defendants moved to dismiss because the covenant was overly broad, alleging that it would keep any Prudential employee from soliciting any B&W employee or contractor from any office. B&W contended that the preface restricted the covenant to the Lincoln Park office and affirmatively stated that it did not seek to enforce it beyond that office. In the alternative, they argued that the severability clause should allow that portion to be separated from the rest of the agreement. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, saying the contract’s plain language related to all of B&W’s offices. Plaintiffs appealed this ruling.

The appeals court started its opinion by considering B&W’s claim that the nonsolicitation contract was not improper under the law. It noted that motions to dismiss are not necessarily appropriate in fact-intensive situations like this one, since the rules limit courts to consideration of facts in the complaint. It then turned to the controversy over whether the contract applied to all offices or just the Lincoln Park office and found that there was insufficient evidence. The record does not show enough evidence to determine whether the contract, as written, is overly broad and poses an undue hardship on Mazzone, the court wrote, or negative effects on the public from the restraint of trade. It also disagreed that enforcing the contract would “render Mazzone unemployable,” since she would be free to solicit employees of non-B&W brokers, even within the limited one-year period specified. Thus, the trial court should not have dismissed it without hearing more evidence, the court wrote. It reversed and remanded the case for more proceedings.

Federal Circuit Rules Hotels.com May Not Have Trademark Because Name is too Generic

October 28, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Our Chicago trademark litigation lawyers noticed a recent trademark law decision that underscores the difficulty of protecting a mark in the emerging world of Internet commerce. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled July 30 that the hotel review and search Web site Hotels.com may not trademark its name because “Hotels.com” is a generic term. In Re Hotels.com, L.P., 08-1429 (Fed. Cir., July 30, 2009). Hotels.com had argued that it is distinct from the generic word “hotels” because it is not a hotel that provides lodging; it is a Web site that provides information about finding lodging at a discount, travel agency services and related services. The Federal Circuit disagreed, saying the addition of “.com” was not enough to remove the generic nature of the name.

To get to the appeals court, the Hotels.com application was first denied by a trademark examiner, then by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). The examiner denied the application because the name “Hotels.com” was “merely descriptive of hotel reservation services,” meaning that it fails the distinctiveness requirement laid out by the Lanham Act. In doing so, the examiner rejected evidence Hotels.com offered to show that it had acquired distinctiveness, including surveys showing that the majority of respondents associated the name “Hotels.com” with its business. On appeal, the TTAB agreed that the term was too generic to trademark, but said acquired distinctiveness may be enough to support registration if the site succeeded on appeal.

In its appeal to the Federal Circuit, Hotels.com argued that its proposed mark is not generic because it is not a hotel in the business of providing lodging; it is a Web site in the business of providing information about hotels. It also argued that its surveys show that consumers associate the name “Hotels.com” with its business and do not see it as generic. Relying largely on the TTAB’s analysis, the court rejected these claims.

Addressing the issue of genericness first, the Federal Circuit found that the TTAB did not err when it considered the word “hotels” for genericness separate from the “.com” suffix. That board found that both “hotels” and “.com” were generic, and Hotels.com did not have the only URL that combined the two words. They do not produce a new meaning in combination or indicate source, the TTAB said, and thus the combination is generic. Furthermore, the TTAB argued, the existence of other sites incorporating “hotels” and “.com” shows that there’s a need to protect competitors who would use the proposed mark in their own names. The appeals court agreed, pointing out a similar decision in the case of Lawyers.com, In re Reed Elsevier Props., Inc., 482 F.3d 1376, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

The circuit court next tackled the evidence of distinctiveness offered by Hotels.com. This includes 64 declarations by the company’s customers, competitors and vendors that Hotels.com is not a generic name. The TTAB dismissed these outright as form letters. While the Federal Circuit found that rejected “unwarranted,” it said they were negated by the totality of other evidence. It next turned to a survey commissioned by Hotels.com, which found that 76% of respondents believed “Hotels.com” was a brand name. The TTAB criticized the design of this study, saying it was skewed in the company’s favor. It also said that respondents may associated a domain name with a brand name. The Federal Circuit took it one step further, suggesting that the TTAB could easily have made its decision on the basis of the genericness evidence alone. Thus, it concluded, the TTAB met its burden of proof and should not be overturned.

Illinois Plaintiffs Can Recover Under Promissory Estoppel, Illinois Supreme Court Rules

October 26, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Promissory estoppel is an affirmative cause of action in Illinois, the Illinois Supreme Court decided April 2. Newton Tractor Sales v. Kubota Tractor Corporation, Ill. Sup. Co. No. 106798, (April 2, 2009). In this Illinois business lawsuit, the court allowed plaintiff Newton Tractor Sales to continue its lawsuit against defendants Kubota Tractor Corporation and Michael Jacobson for allegedly reneging on a promise to make Newton an authorized dealer of Kubota farm equipment.

Newton, a farm equipment dealership in Fayette County, purchased competitor Vandalia Tractor & Equipment (VTE) in July of 2003. As a condition of that sale, the contract specified that the deal could be canceled if Newton did not get permission to sell several makes of equipment, including Kubota. Kubota asked Newton to apply to their local representative, defendant Michael Jacobson. Jacobson required VTE to first cancel its relationship with Kubota, which it agreed to do only if it was assured that Newton would be authorized to sell Kubota products. Jacobson said it would, and both dealerships relied on that statement in signing those papers. Newton further relied on it when it began selling and servicing Kubota products.’

Unfortunately, Kubota’s corporate office denied Newton’s application, as well as a later appeal for reconsideration. Newton sued Kubota for promissory estoppel, common-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation. A Fayette County court granted Kubota summary judgment on all three counts, and after an appeal, the appellate court affirmed that judgment. On the promissory estoppel count, both courts found that Illinois appellate decisions said promissory estoppel is not a recognized cause of action in Illinois. Newton appealed as to the promissory estoppel claim to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Illinois Trade Secrets Act Does Not Preempt Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims, First District Rules

October 23, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

Our Chicago trade secrets litigation lawyers were interested to see a recent case pitting a school bus company in Cook County against competitors and former employees. Alpha School Bus Company, Inc. v. Wagner, No. 1-06-3427 (Ill. 1st May 15, 2009). Alpha is owned by Cook-Illinois Corporation (collectively “Alpha”), which contracts to provide busing to school districts for special education students. Defendant Michael Wagner was an officer of Alpha and non-appealing defendant Leroy Meister was a managing employee. Barbara Ann Hackel owned Southwest Transit and Wagner owned Southwest Transit Leasing LLC, which leased buses to Southwest. Wagner and Meister left Alpha to join Southwest in 2003.

Alpha alleges that defendants, while employed at Alpha, conspired to secure a contract for Southwest by using their positions to make sure Southwest had a lower bid. Alpha also alleges that in forming Southwest, defendants conspired to drive Alpha out of business, sabotaged it, stole trade secrets and lured away employees. They allegedly hid their involvement in Southwest, solicited Alpha’s customers, falsified time sheets for Meister and other employees and had employees of Alpha stay to sabotage the company. Alpha sued for misappropriation of trade secrets, civil conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, antitrust violations and an injunction.

After Alpha filed several amended complaints, defendants moved to dismiss all of these claims, which the trial court granted with prejudice on all counts except the claim for misappropriation of trade secrets. The trial court found that all of the counts were based on the alleged theft of trade secrets and were therefore preempted by the Illinois Trade Secrets Act. Similarly, several other counts alleging conspiracy were preempted by the Antitrust Act. The remaining count was the claim for misappropriation of trade secrets, which the court dismissed without prejudice because it did not have enough information to state a cause of action. After an amended complaint that didn’t meet legal standards, the court dismissed that count with prejudice as well. The instant appeal followed.

The appeals court started by noting that Alpha did not submit a record of the trial, as required, so it could only consider the issues of law. It then took up the issue of whether the Antitrust and Trade Secrets Act preempt Alpha’s breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, trade secrets and antitrust claims. Alpha claims that Wagner used his position to prepare a lower bid for Southwest, which indeed would be a breach of fiduciary duty under caselaw. The court wrote that this would have involved the misappropriation of trade secrets, but does not depend on it. Thus, the Trade Secrets Act doesn’t preempt the breach of fiduciary duty claim and the trial court erred.

Similarly, the claim that Hackel induced Wagner to breach his fiduciary duty should not have been dismissed, the court wrote, because most of the allegations supporting it did not depend on misappropriation of trade secrets. And Cook-Illinois may sue Wagner for breach of fiduciary duty because Alpha properly asserted that Wagner was an officer of Cook-Illinois when he allegedly converted some of its trade secrets for use by Southwest. The First reversed the trial court on those three claims.

However, it upheld the trial court on all of the other claims. In many cases, the court wrote that the claims failed as a matter of law because of confusions between defendants as individuals and the corporations for whom they were acting as agents, or because of procedural errors. Furthermore, most of the trade secrets Alpha alleged were misappropriated failed to meet the definition of a trade secret under Illinois law: “Plaintiffs’ attempt to claim as a trade secret their “customer list,” i.e., the names of the school districts, is patently false because this information is glaringly nonsecret.” Finally, the court affirmed on the dismissal of the final complaint with prejudice, noting that the record shows no attempt by Alpha to amend its complaint again before the dismissal and appeal. Thus, the trial court was mostly affirmed and partly reversed.

Second Circuit Rules Sale of Google Keyword Advertisements May Be a Use in Commerce Under Lanham Act

October 21, 2009 | Peter S. Lubin and James V. DiTommaso

A trademark infringement lawsuit against Google may go forward despite a related ruling by the same court, the Second Circuit Court of Appeal ruled April 3. In Rescuecom v. Google, No. 06-4881-cv (2nd Cir. April 3, 2009), the appeals court ruled that its own previous ruling in 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2005), which held that an online advertiser was not using the plaintiff’s trademark in commerce, did not apply. The court made no determination as to whether Google’s use of Rescuecom’s trademark was a use in commerce, as required by the Lanham Act to show infringement. Rather, it said Rescuecom should have a chance to present its evidence, and sent the case back to trial court.

The case is one of multiple lawsuits against Google alleging that the search engine giant infringes trademarks by selling them as keywords. When a Google user searches for these trademarked keywords, the competitor’s advertisements appear as “Sponsored Links.” Rescuecom (and plaintiffs in other suits) claimed that this created a likelihood of confusion among consumers searching for its own Web site. Rescuecom also alleged that Google’s Keyword Suggestion Tool, which automatically generates keywords for potential advertisers, infringed its trademark by suggesting the trademark to competitors. It sued Google on multiple grounds, but Google succeeded on a motion to dismiss some trademark claims for failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)), because the use of Rescuecom’s trademark was not a use in commerce under 1-800-Contacts.Rescuecom appealed.

In a ruling that will be important for Illinois online trademark infringement attorneys like us, the Second Circuit overturned that decision. It said 1-800-Contacts was not binding because it had material differences from this case. In that case, the defendant distributed free software displaying popups that were clearly advertisements and clearly indicated that the defendant, rather than the trademark holder, was responsible for them. This was not a “use in commerce” under the meaning of the Lanham Act, the court wrote, and thus the defendant was not liable for the trademark claims. (The court went into detail about the weighty issue of “use in commerce” in an appendix.) Furthermore, the defendant in 1-800-Contacts did not display the plaintiff’s trademark or sell it as a keyword.

Neither of those was true in Rescuecom, the Second Circuit wrote. Unlike in the previous case, in which competitors’ ads would pop up after a search for a broad product category like “eye care,” Google was actively using the plaintiff’s trademark as a keyword for sale and putting it s on display. Furthermore, the court said, Google was using the trademark as a suggestion for potential advertising customers using the Keyword Suggestion Tool. Google’s argument that placing the advertisements next to “organic” search results was similar to placing competing brands next to each other on a store’s shelf failed, the court said, because its Sponsored Links could be deceptive to consumers. The court emphasized that it made no ruling on whether this was likely to be confusing — necessary for proving a trademark infringement claim — but said Rescuecom should have a chance to make that case in trial court. Thus, it reversed and remanded the Rule 12(b)(6) decision.