Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01056/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01056-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 450
Nature of Suit: Interstate Commerce
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

ThermoLife International, LLC,

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, 

v. 

Gaspari Nutrition, Inc., et al., 

Defendants/Counterclaimants.

No. CV-11-01056-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court are three requests for attorneys’ fees: Gaspari Nutrition, Inc.’s 

Application for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 405), ThermoLife’s Motion for an Award of 

Attorneys’ Fees and Non-Taxable Expenses Related to GNI’s Counterclaims (Doc. 398), 

and Plaintiff’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees Related to Discovery Master’s Award of 

Sanctions (Doc. 396). In deciding these requests, the Court does not consider Gaspari 

Nutrition, Inc.’s Notice of Evidence Relevant to a Finding of Exceptionality (Doc. 387) 

and GNI’s response (Doc. 389), which were filed without leave of court or other 

authorization. 

I. BACKGROUND 

ThermoLife International, LLC (“TLI”) and Gaspari Nutrition, Inc. (“GNI”) have 

been competitors in the business of selling dietary supplement products related to 

bodybuilding. In its First Amended Complaint, TLI alleged eleven counts, nine of which 

were for false advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), which is § 43(a)(1)(B) of the 

Lanham Act. The First Amended Complaint also alleged common law unfair 

competition and tortious interference with business and business expectancy. In its 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 447 Filed 03/13/14 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Counterclaim, GNI alleged unfair competition, trade disparagement, and, under 

15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), false designations of origin, false descriptions, false advertising, and 

unfair competition. 

On January 10, 2014, four motions by GNI and two motions by TLI to exclude all 

or portions of the opposing party’s expert witness evidence were granted, and both 

parties’ motions for summary judgment were granted. (Doc. 391.) In addition, two 

motions by TLI for sanctions were denied. (Id.) On January 27, 2014, the Court ruled 

that, although each party prevailed on its motion for summary judgment, only one party is 

permitted to recover taxable costs, GNI was the prevailing party in net, and therefore GNI 

was entitled to recovery of taxable costs that were not pertinent only to prosecution of 

GNI’s unsuccessful counterclaims. (Doc. 406.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Both parties seek fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), which provides that the court 

may award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party on § 1125(a) claims in 

exceptional cases. Section 1117(a) “permits, but does not mandate, an award of 

attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party in ‘exceptional circumstances.’” Gracie v. Gracie, 

217 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2000). Awards under § 1117(a) “are never automatic and 

may be limited by equitable considerations.” Perfumebay.com Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 

506 F.3d 1165, 1178 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Rolex Watch, U.S.A., Inc. v. Michel Co., 

179 F.3d 704, 711 (9th Cir. 1999)). 

An action may be considered “exceptional” when a plaintiff’s case is groundless, 

unreasonable, vexatious, or pursued in bad faith. Secalt S.A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Const. Mach. 

Co., Ltd., 668 F.3d 677, 687 (9th Cir. 2012). “The line distinguishing exceptional cases 

from non-exceptional cases is far from clear. It is especially fuzzy where the defendant

prevails due to plaintiff’s failure of proof.” Id. “[E]xceptional cases include instances 

where plaintiff’s case is frivolous or completely lacking in merit.” Id. Animosity 

between parties alone does not make a case exceptional. See Stephen W. Boney, Inc. v. 

Boney Servs., Inc., 127 F.3d 821, 827 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 447 Filed 03/13/14 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

III. ANALYSIS 

GNI seeks an award of $1,743,053.13 for attorneys’ fees and $343,643.60 for its 

expert witness fees. GNI contends this is an exceptional case because TLI’s claims were 

groundless and TLI acted in bad faith throughout the litigation. GNI particularly points 

to TLI’s conduct outside of the litigation as evidence of bad faith. 

TLI does not believe a fee award is appropriate in this case, but contends that if 

there is any basis for awarding GNI fees for prevailing on TLI’s claims, the same basis 

exists for awarding TLI fees for prevailing on GNI’s counterclaims. TLI contends that 

GNI’s counterclaims were baseless and GNI engaged in litigation misconduct, 

particularly regarding discovery. To the extent that the Court finds that fees are 

appropriate for either party, TLI requests an award in the amount of $384,101.75 for fees 

and $163,230.42 for non-taxable costs incurred defending against GNI’s counterclaims. 

This includes $123,768.80 for the cost of electronically stored discovery. 

TLI also seeks attorneys’ fees related to the Discovery Master’s award of 

sanctions. (Docs. 239, 309.) TLI seeks an award of $5,672.50, but only $1,657.50 if 

granted its fee request related to prevailing on GNI’s counterclaims. 

This is one of those cases where the line distinguishing exceptional cases from 

non-exceptional cases is “especially fuzzy.” Neither party was successful on any of its 

claims. Both parties rely on the Court’s January 10, 2014 Order to support their 

contentions that the opposing party’s claims were groundless even though the Order did 

not address whether the claims completely lacked merit. And the record shows 

misconduct and overlitigation by both parties. It would be possible to examine the fee 

requests in detail, eliminate certain categories such as expert witness fees, reduce and/or 

shift discovery fees and expenses based on fault, and determine whether either party 

would be entitled to any award after offset. However, equitable considerations support 

denial of all of the fee requests without doing further calculation and weighing. 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 447 Filed 03/13/14 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Therefore, it is unnecessary to decide which side of the line this case falls on because fees 

will be denied to both parties regardless of exceptionality. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Gaspari Nutrition, Inc.’s Application for 

Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 405) is denied, ThermoLife’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ 

Fees and Non-Taxable Expenses Related to GNI’s Counterclaims (Doc. 398) is denied, 

and Plaintiff’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees Related to Discovery Master’s Award of 

Sanctions (Doc. 396) is denied. 

Dated this 13th day of March, 2014. 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 447 Filed 03/13/14 Page 4 of 4