Case Title: Maguire v. Garruso

Citation: 174 Vt. 1, 800 A.2d 1085

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2002-05-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
Maguire v. Gorruso (2001-203); 174 Vt. 1; 800 A.2d 1085

[Filed 03-May-2002]


       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal  revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of  Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any  errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                No. 2001-203


Robert W. Maguire and	                         Supreme Court
Robert W. Maguire, Ltd.
                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         Rutland Superior Court


Samuel J. Gorruso, 	                         November Term, 2001
Sammy G. Media Corporation


Richard W. Norton, J.

John J. Welch, Jr., Rutland, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Kevin Ellicott of Ellicott, P.C., Rutland, for Defendants-Appellants.


PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.


       AMESTOY, C.J.    Defendants Samuel J. Gorruso and Sammy G. Media
  Corporation appeal  from a judgment, based on a jury verdict, in favor of
  plaintiffs Robert W. Maguire and Robert  Maguire, Ltd., awarding damages of
  $272,000 for unfair competition and $143,000 for conversion.   Defendants
  contend: (1) compensatory damages were unavailable as a matter of law for
  the common  law unfair competition claim of trade name or trade dress
  infringement; (2) the evidence was  insufficient to prove the elements of
  the infringement claim; (3) the court abused its discretion in  denying a
  motion to modify the conversion award; and (4) the court erred in allowing
  defendant 

 

  Gorruso to be held personally liable.  We remit the award for conversion, 
  and otherwise affirm the  judgment.
  	
       Viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment,  Hanes v. Golub
  Corp., 166 Vt. 228, 233,