[PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES C OURT OF APPEALS FOR T HE ELE VENTH C IRC UIT

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ No. 1 1-1391 6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C . Doc ke t No . 6: 09-c v-0194 5-JA-GJK

SUNTREE TE CHN OLOGIES, INC ., a Florid a co rporat ion , Pla int iff-Appe lla nt,
ve rsus EC OSENSE INTER

NATIONAL, INC. , a Florid a co rporat ion , GEOR GE DUSSICH, De fend ants-Ap pe lle es , DER RIC O C ONSTR

UCT ION C ORPOR

ATION, a Florid a co rporat ion , De fend ant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appe alfrom

theUni te d Sta

te s Di stri ct

Co urt for the Mi ddl e Dist

ric t of Fl orida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (Sept em be r 5, 20 12) Case: 11-13916 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 1 of 24Be fore DU BINA, JOR DAN a nd AL ARC ON, Ci rcui t Ju dge s. * ALAR CÓN , C irc uit

Judge : Suntre e Te chnol ogi es , Inc . (“ Suntre e” ) ap pe al s from thedis tric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ingit s m oti on for s um m ary jud gm ent a

nd g rant ingthem oti ons for
sum m ary jud gm ent fil ed

by Ec ose nse Inte rnat ion al , Inc . (“ Ec ose nse ”) a nd Ge orge Duss ic h wi th re ga

rd to Suntre e’ s c la im s of fa lsede sig natio n of ori gin and fa lse ad ve rtis ingund er Se ction

43(a) of the La

nha m Ac t, c om m on l awtra de m ark infrin ge m ent a

nd u nfai r co m pe tit ion , a nd d ec ep tiv e an d un fai r trad e prac tic es pursu ant t o th e Florid a De cepti ve and Un fai r Trad e Prac tic es Ac t (“ FDUPTA”),
co difie d at Fla . Stat. § 501 .201 et se q (2012 ). Suntre e co nte nds that t he dis tric t
co urt e rred i n c onc lud ingtha t Sunt ree fai le d to e sta

bli sh t hat Ec ose nse and Du ssi ch dire ct ly or c ont ribut orily infrin ge d on

the ir tra de m ark be ca

use it fai le d to pre se nt
ev ide nc e of a ct

ua l or o f a l ike lih ood of c onfus ion . W e dis ag ree and a ffirm
. I Suntre e m an

ufac ture s a

produ ct c al le d ba ffle b oxe s, wh ic h we re d es cribe d by Thom as Ha

ppe l, t he pre sid ent of Suntre e, in his de cl aratio n a s “ sto rm wate r tre at m ent st ruct ures tha t re m ove orga

nic debris, tra sh, o il an d ot he r polluta

nts from sto rm wate r be fore t

he sto rm wate r rea ch es la

ke s, riv ers and s tre am s.” Sunt reeis
Honora ble Arthur L . Alarc ón, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing * by designation. 2

Case: 11-13916 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 2 of 24the m ost

we ll-kn own s torm

filt rat ion produ ct sup pli er i n Flori da . Sunt ree ’s ba ffle boxe s ha ve be en c ert ifie d by

Ne w Je rse y ’s Co rporat ion for Adva nc ed Te chnol ogi es progra

m (“ NJC AT” ), a ce rtific ation

tha t i s re qui red to s el l ba ffle boxe s in Ne w Je rse y

and i n a num be r of oth er s tate s. Fl orida rec ogni ze s NJ CAT pre-a pprova l of p roduc ts. In hi s de cl aratio n, Ha ppe l a lle ge d th at

“ Suntre e use s it s NJC AT c ert ific at ion

a s a se lli ng p oint for i ts b affle box es be ca use rel ative ly

few sto rm wate r eq uip m ent c om

pa nie s ha ve suc h c ert ific ation s.” Ec ose nse a lso m an

ufac ture s ba ffle b oxe s. It ins ta lle d it s first

ba ffle b ox i n 2008 . Ge orge Duss ic h is the pre sid ent a nd m aj ority

sha reho lde r of Ec ose nse . Ra ndy Bu rden is its vic e-pre sid ent a

nd mino rity

sha reho lde r. In thefal l of 2 008, the Ci ty of W es t M elbourne , Flori da (“ the Ci ty ”), b eg an sol ic iti ng b ids for theCi ty of W es t M elbourneStorm wate r Qua lit

y Re trofit Proje ct (“ The CWM Proj ec t” ). C ont rac tors wish ingto bid

on t he proje ct obt ai ne d a

pa ck et of doc um ents c al le d th e Bi ddi ng a nd C onst ruct ion Co ntra ct Doc um ents a

nd Te chnic alSpe ci fic at ion s (“bid din g do cu m ents” ). Thespe ci fic at ion s in the bid din g doc um ents i nc lud ed

the foll owin g re qui rem ent: NUTRIENT SEPAR

ATING B AFFLE B OXES TO B E PROVIDED BYSUNTREE TE CHN OLOGIES, INC
. OR APPROVED EQUAL. C ONSTR UCT ION DETAILS AND SPECS ARE IDENTIFIED B Y SUNTREE TE CHN OLOGIES, INC . APPRO VED EQUAL SHAL L M EET OR EXC EED SUNTR

EE
3 Case: 11-13916 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 3 of 24TEC HNOLOGIES, INC . SPECIFICA TIONS.

The spe ci fic at ion s li ste d Sunt reeba ffle b oxe s a s th e “propos ed ba ffle b ox m an ufac ture r/m ode l” for ea ch of th e nin e ba ffle b oxe s to be ins ta lle d. La wren ce Ja rvis, an e m

plo y ee of Jo ne s Ed

m unds , who wa s hi red by

the Co unt

y a s th e proje ct
en gin ee r for the CWM Proj ec t, d ec la red in h is d ep osi tio n th at

the Ci ty wa s no t pe rm itt ed und er Flo rida

la w to de sig nate Suntre e as thesol e m an ufac ture r of ba ffle boxe s a bse nt a sho wingof sp ec ia l c irc um sta nc es . The bid sol ic ita tio n form inc lud ed in the bid din g do cum ents re qui red bid de rs to l ist the sub co ntra ct ors a

nd s uppl ie rs th ey

rel ie d up on i n c al cu latin g th ei r bids . It sta te d: The Unde rsign ed sta te s th at thefoll owin g is a

fulland co m ple te li st o f the propo se d su bc ont rac tors an d supp lie rs on thi s Proje ct

and t he c la ss o f work t o be pe rform ed

by e ac h a nd t hat su ch li st w illnot

be a dde d to nor a lte red wit

hout writt en c onse nt t o th e Owne r throu gh the Engi ne er. Artic le 11 o f the ins truc tio ns t o bi dde rs, in clude d in the bid din g do cum ents, provi de d a s fol lows :

The Co ntra ct , if a

warded , wil l be on t

he ba sis of m at eri al s a

nd e quipm ent sp ec ifie d or de sc ribe d in the Bi ddi ng Do cum ents wi tho ut c onside ration of poss ible subs tit uteor “o r e qual ” ite ms . Whe ne ve r it i s sp ec ifie d or de sc ribe d in

the Bi ddi ng Do cu

m ents t hat a sub sti tut e or “ or e qua l” it em

of m at eri alor e quipm ent m ay be furnish ed or us ed by if a cc ep ta

ble to the Engi ne er, 4 Case: 11-13916 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 4 of 24applic ati on f or s uc h ac ce

pta nc e wi ll not

bec onside re d by theEngine er

until after

theEff ec tiv e Date

of the Agre em en t . (em pha sis a dde d). Se ction

6.05 of th e bid din g do cum ents p rovid ed tha t

“ [w]h en ev er a

n it em of m at eri alor e quipm ent i s sp ec ifie d or de sc ribe d in the Co ntra ct Doc um ents b y

usi ng t he nam e of a

propri et ary

it em or th e nam e of a pa rtic ula r Suppli er, t

he spe ci fic at ion

or de sc ripti on i s inte nde d to e sta bli sh t he ty pe , func tio n, a

ppe ara nc e an d qu al ity

req uire d.” Sec tio n 6.0 5 a lso se t forth the proc es s a co ntra ct or m

ust go t hrough in orde r to g ai n a

pprova l for a

n “ or e qua l” it em

of
m at eri alor e quipm ent. Approva l wa s in the sol e dis cre tio n of J arvi s, a s th e proje ct ’s e ngi ne er. Ra

the r tha n in cu rring t he e xpe nse of pre -app rovin g a n ad dit ion al , le ss e xpe nsi ve sup pli er, t he e ngi ne ers for the Ci ty

and C ount

y de ci de d to u se Suntre e’ s na

m e in t he bid din g sp ec ific at ion s. If th e co ntra ct or who wa s aw arde d th e proje ct

found a le ss e xpe nsi ve ba ffle b ox t hat wa s a pprove d to be of eq ua l qu al ity

to Suntre e’ s, t

he be ne fit o f the red

uc tio n in c ost woul d go to the
co ntra ct or. De rrico Co nst

ruct ion Co rp. (“ De rrico ”), a

ge ne ralc ont

rac tor, s ubmitt ed

a bid for theCWM Proj ec t t

hat wa s si gni fic antly

low er t ha n th e oth er b idd ers . It wa s al so a pproxi m at el y

$85 ,000 le ss t

ha n th e proje ct

e ngi ne er’ s e sti m at e. Ma

rk C at te y , the e sti m at or for De rrico who as se m ble d De rrico ’s bid , a lle ge d in his de posi tio n

5 Case: 11-13916 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 5 of 24that, i n c onformity wit h th e spe ci fic at ion s in

the bid din g do cum ents, De rrico ’s bid lis te d Sunt

ree a s th e supp lie r for the ba ffle b oxe s be ca use De rrico “ did

not kno w if
an a lte rnat e woul d be a cc ep te d a fte r awa rd so [the y ] ha d to be c ove red to i nst al l [Suntre e’ s] produ ct ” if ne ce ssa ry . Ca rolin a Alva

rez , a n e ngi ne er for t

he Co unt y , who worke d on

theCWM Proje ct , rev ie we d De rrico ’s bid . De rrico ’s bid wa s a cc ep te d. At

a pre -con struc tio n m ee tin g in

mid-Ja nua ry 200 9, De rrico req

ue ste d a pprova l of E co se nse ’s ba ffle boxe s a s a

n “ or e qua l” sub sti tut e as wa s pe rm itt ed in the bid din g do cum ents dis tribute d to pot entia l bi dde rs whe n th e Ci ty wa s so lic iti ng b ids . Ja

rvis revi ew ed the spe ci fic at ion s of t

he Ec ose nse ba ffle b oxe s a nd i nspe ct ed

an Ec ose nse ba ffle box ins ta lle d in

anot he r m uni cipa lit y be fore a pprovi ng i t a s a

sub sti tut e for Suntre e’ s prod

uc t. D erric o in sta lle d Ec ose nse ba ffle b oxe s. Afte r the proje ct

wa s c om ple te d, Al va

rezreq ue ste d th at

Ec ose nse pre pa

re a powe r point pre se ntatio n to tra in t he Ci ty ’s pe rsonn elon t

he prope r cl ea

nin g a nd
m ai nte na nc e proc ed

ures for ba ffle b oxe s. T he pre se ntatio n sh owe d ba ffle b oxe s be ingc le an ed

and m ai nta ine d by

m uni cipa l wo rkers for the Ci ty of R oc kle dge , a ci ty c los e to E co se nse ’s offic e. Ec ose nse ha d a goo d re latio nship wi th t

he Ci ty of Ro ck le dge and t

he ir m ai nte na

nc e cre w wa s c ap ab leand we ll-t rai ne d. B ec au se bot h Ec ose nse and Suntre e ba ffle b oxe s ha d be en ins ta lle d in

theCi ty of

6 Case: 11-13916 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 6 of 24Ro ck le dge , th e pres entatio n in clude d ph oto grap hs o f both Ec ose nse and Suntre e ba ffle b oxe s. Suntre e’ s na m e wa s no t i nc lud ed

any whe re i n th e m ai nte na

nc e pres entatio n. Th e powe r point pre se ntatio n wa s gi ve n to the Ci ty of W es t Me lbo urne and t

he Ci ty of Ti tus vil le . B oth

we re a lre ad

y c ust om ers of Ec ose nse at that t im e. A l ink

to the pre se ntatio n wa s on Ec ose nse ’s we bsi te for thre e m ont hs, but wa s ta ke n do wn wh en

Suntre e co m

pla ine d a bout thepho tog raph s. II A Suntre e file d a

c om pla int in thi s m at

te r ag ai nst

Ec ose nse , Dus sic h, a

nd De rrico on N ove m

be r 13, 2 009. It s ubse que ntl y file d a n am en de d c om

plaint on De ce m be r 9, 20 09. The am en de d c om pla int a lle ge d th at

De rrico , Ec ose nse , a

nd Duss ic h’ s us e of Suntre e’ s tra de m ark in t he sub m iss ion

of De rrico ’s bid

for the CWM Proj ec t a

nd i n th e m ai nte na

nc e pres entatio n wa s li ke ly to ca use c onfus ion

a s to t he origi n of t

he produ ct s to beins ta lle d, wa s fa lse and misl ea din g, a nd wa s lik el y to de ce ive c onsu

m ers . Sunt

ree a lso a lle ge d th at

thec ondu ct

of De rrico , Ec ose nse , a

nd Du ssi ch

in obt ai nin g th e co ntra ct

c onstitute d un fai r co m

pe tition , m isl ea din g a

nd d ec ep tiv e repre se ntatio ns, a nd u nfai r prac tic es und er Flo rida sta te la w. B

7 Case: 11-13916 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 7 of 24On Ja nua ry 10, 2010 , Sunt

ree e nte red int o a

se ttl em ent a gree m ent wi th De rrico . In t

he a gree m ent, De rrico prom ise d th at in submittingfuture bid s whi ch provi de “ that i t wi ll use Suntre e’ s prod uc ts o n th e proje ct , it

wil l no t se ek

to subs tit ute or a ct ua lly sub sti tut e any

oth er p roduc ts i n pl ac e of Suntre e’ s prod uc ts on t hat st orm wate r filt rat ion proje ct .” De rrico a lso a gree d to c oope rat e wit h Suntre e in t

his li tig ation

and t o prov ide doc um ents a nd wi tne sse s, a s we ll as a de cl aratio n from

John Robe rtson , De rrico ’s pre sid ent, s et tin g forth thefac ts rega rdinghis kno wle dgeof th e CWM Proj ec t. Robe rtson ’s de cl aratio n st at ed a s follo ws: From

the be ginnin g of ou

r pre-bi d a

na ly sis of th e proje ct wit h Ec ose nse and M r. Duss ic h through it co m ple tio n, we pla nne d on usi ng Ec ose nse ’s sto rm

wate r filt rat ion produc ts o n th e proje ct

and b as ed

thee quipm ent c ost s in Sec tio n 5.0 1 of De rrico ’s bid on t he c ost of Ec ose nse ’s produc ts, not

Suntre e’ s prod

uc ts. Howe ve r, Mr. Du ssi ch

and I de ci de d we woul d ha ve a m uc h be tte r ch an ce of be ingthewinnin g bi dde r if we lis te d Sunt

ree a s th e ba ffle b ox s uppl ie r in o ur bid . W e the n pl anne d to sub sti tut e Ec ose nse ’s produ ct s in pla ce of Suntre e’ s prod

uc ts a fte r obtaini ng t

he c ont rac t. D erric o woul d on ly

have ins ta lle d Sunt

ree ’s produ ct s if t

he Ci ty de nie d ou r subs tit uti on re que st. Duringhis de posi tio n, Robe rtson te sti fie d th at

he woul d c ha

nge his de cl aratio n wi th re ga

rd to the sta

te m ent t hat he and Du ssi ch

de ci de d th ey

woul d have a be tte r ch an ce of be ingthewinne r bidd er i f Suntre e wa s li ste d a s th e ba ffle
8 Case: 11-13916 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 8 of 24box supp lie r in De rrico ’s bid be ca use thesta

te m ent “ kin d of re ad [] c onsp ira cy ish ,” but tha t De rrico a lwa

y s inte nde d to “upho ld [i ts] c om m itm ent t o th e Ci ty .” He te sti fie d th at

“ it wa s ju st a

dis cu ssi on [wi th E co se nse ], if y ou c an ge t t his ap prove d, gre at .” R obe rtson furthe r te sti fie d th at

De rrico ’s c ont ac t wa s m ost ly wit h B urde n, no t Du ssi ch
. C Duringthe c ourse of di sc ove ry in thi s m at

te r, Ec ose nseprodu ce d a

broc hure whic h di spl ay ed

pic ture s a

nd d es cripti ons of it s prod uc ts. The broc hure wa s em ai le d to c ust om ers in 2008 or 200 9 a nd h as sin ce be en

upd at ed se ve ralti m es . One of th e phot os o n th e broc hure de pic te d a m ai nte na nc e worke r lookingint o th e ope n hatc h of a

Suntre e ba ffle b ox. Ec ose nse de stroy ed a ll co pie s of t

he broc hure
ex cept o ne e xe m

pla r for use in thi s li tig at ion
.

D On M arc h 18 , 201 1, Sunt ree , Ec ose nse , a

nd Du ssi ch

file d m oti ons for
sum m ary jud gm ent. Suntre e argu ed in supp ort of i ts m oti on t ha t t he undisp ute d fac ts i n th e rec ord e sta

bli she d th at

De rrico ha d in fringe d on it s tra de m ark whe n it lis te d Sunt

ree a s th e ba ffle b ox s uppl ie r in i ts b id. Suntre e al so a lle ge d th at Ec ose nse and Du ssi ch

we re a ware o f Derric o’ s im

prope r co nduc t. In it s m oti on for s um

m ary jud gm ent, Ec ose nse m ai nta ine d th at the

9 Case: 11-13916 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 9 of 24“undi sput ed

rec ord e vid en ce sho w[ed ] that: 1) De rrico a lon e m ad e the de ci sio n to lis t Sunt ree on t he CWM b id d oc um ents; 2) th at the e xpre ss t erm s of t

he bid doc um ents re qui re[d] the c ont rac tor t o li st o nly

pre -app rove d su

ppl ie rs (in t

his
ca se , Sunt ree ); a nd 3 ) tha t t he CWM b id d oc um ents e xpre ssl y pe rm it[t ed ] post -bid subs tit uti ons of a lte rnat ive sup pli ers .” Ec ose nsea lso a sse rte d th at thepowe r point
m ai nte na nc e pres entatio n wa s c reate d for th e tra ini ng o f ex ist ingc ust om ers . It a lso argu ed tha t t he re wa s no e vid en ce in therec ord th at de m onst rat ed tha t t he
m ai nte na nc e pres entatio n or t

he broc hure c au se d a

ny c ust om er c onfus ion
. In his m oti on, D uss ic h re que ste d th at the dis tric t c ourt grant

sum m ary jud gm ent i n favor of h im se lf a nd Ec ose nse be ca

use ne ith er wa s in

vol ve d in draft inga nd s ubmitt ingDe rrico ’s bid . He a lso a sse rte d th at De rrico pre ci se ly follo we d th e bid din g do cum ents’ ins truc tio ns for s ubst itutin g su ppl ie rs a nd t hat t he soph ist ic at ed

buy ers inv olv ed

“ we re n ot misl ea d a s to thesou rce of th e produc t.” The dis tric t c ourt grant ed sum m ary jud gm ent i n favor of Ec ose nse and Duss ic h a nd d en ie d Sunt

ree ’s m oti on for s um

m ary jud gm ent. Suntre e ha s ti m el y

a ppe al ed . Thedis tric t c ourt h ad juri sdi ct ion

pursu ant t o 28 U. S.C. §§ 1 331 an d 13 38. This Co urt ha s ju risdi ct ion pursu ant t o 28 U.S.C
. § 12 91. III

10 Case: 11-13916 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 10 of 24Suntre e co nte nds that t he dis tric t c ourt e rred i n gra nti ng s um m ary jud gm ent in fa vor of Ec ose nse and Du ssi ch wit h re ga rd to its c la im s of fa lse de sig na tio n of origi n pu rsua nt t o 15 U.S.C . § 1 125, c om m on l aw tra de m ark infrin ge m ent a nd unfa ir c om

pe tit ion und er Flo rida

sta te la w, a nd v iol at ion s of FDUPTA. Suntre e argu es tha

t t he e vid en ce de m onst

rat ed tha t Ec ose nse and Du ssi ch

c ont ribut orily infrin ge d on

Suntre e’ s tra de m ark in t

he bid din g proc es s for th e CWM Proj ec t. It
co nte nds that t

he dis tric t c ourt’ s gra

nt o f sum m ary jud gm ent i n favor of Ec ose nse an d Dus sic h sh oul d be rev ers ed and t hat su m m ary jud gm ent sh oul d be e nte red in its fav or. In t

he a lte rnat ive , Sunt

ree a sse rts t

hat t he dis tric t c ourt’ s orde r shou ld b e va ca te d a s to whe the r the re wa s c ont ribut ory infrin ge m ent by

Ec ose nse and Duss ic h be ca

use “ a se rie s of d isp ute d fa ct s” e xis t t hat sh oul d be de ci de d by

a jury
.

“ W e revi ew denov o the grant o f a m oti on for s um m ary jud gm ent.” Moor man v . Unu mPro vide nt C orp. , 464 F.3d 1 260, 126 4 (11t h C ir. 20 06). R

ule 56 o f the Fed era l R

ule s of C ivi l Proc ed

ure provi de s th at

the “ co urt s ha ll grant
sum m ary jud gm ent i f the m ova

nt s hows tha

t t he re i s no ge nui ne dis put e as to any m at eri alfac t a

nd t he m ova nt i s e nti tle d to jud gm ent a s a m at te r of la w.” Whe n th e co urt re vie ws a

sum m ary jud gm ent m oti on, “ [t] he e vid en ce of th e nonm ova nt i s to be be lie ve d, a

nd a ll jus tifi ab le infe renc es are t o be drawn i n hi s favor.” Ande rso n v. Libe rty Lobby , Inc
. , 477 U.S. 24 2, 25 5 (198 6).

11 Case: 11-13916 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 11 of 24A

The La nha m Ac t, c odi fie d at 15 U.S.C . §§ 1051 -1127, prote ct s tra de m ark
owne rs from

infrin ge m ent a

nd u nfai r co m pe tit ion by “prohibit ingtheuse in int ers ta te c om m erc e of any

‘ word, t erm , na

m e, sy m bolor de vic e, . . . or any

fal se de sig natio n of ori gin

. . . whic h is li ke ly

to ca use c onfus ion

. . . as to the origi n, spon sorsh ip, or a

pprova l of h is o r he r good s, s ervi ce s, or c om m erc ia l a ct ivi tie s by
an oth er p ers on.’ ” Tana v . Dan tan na’s , 611 F.3d 7 67, 7 72-73 (11th Ci r. 2010 ) (quot ing15 U .S.C. § 11 25(a )). “ FDUPTA m ak es il le ga l ‘ [u] nfai r m et hods of
co m pe tit ion , unc onsc ion ab le a ct s or p rac tic es , a nd u nfai r or de cepti ve a ct s or prac tic es in the c ondu ct

of a ny tra de or c om

m erc e . . . . ’” Sov erei

gn Mi lit ary Hosp ita lli er

Orde r of Saint J ohn of J erusal em of Rhod

es &ofMalt

a v . Flo rid

a Pri ory of Kn igh ts H

ospi talle rs o

f t heSov erei

gn Or de r of St. J ohn of J erusalem , Kn igh ts o f Malta, theEc ume nic al O rde r , 816 F. Supp. 2d 1 290, 130 3 (S.D. Fla
. 2011 ) (“ SMOM

”) (qu oti ng Fla . Sta

t. § 501 .204 (1)). “ The purpo se of FDUPTA i s ‘[t ]o prote ct

the c onsu

m ingpub lic and l eg iti m at e busi ne ss e nte rprise s from tho se who e nga ge in unfa ir m et hods of c om

pe tition , or un co nsc ion ab le , de cepti ve , or unfa ir a ct s or p rac tic es in the c ondu ct of a ny tra de or c om

m erc e. ’” Id. (quot ing Fla . Sta t. § 501 .202 (2)). Suntre e co nte nds that t

he dis tric t c ourt e rroneo usl y c onc lud ed

tha t t he le ga l

12 Case: 11-13916 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 12 of 24an al y sis is the sa m e for al l t

hreec ount s in

Suntre e’ s c om

pla int : vi olatio ns o f the Lanha m Ac t, FDUPTA, an d Flori da sta te c om m on l awfor infrin ge m ent a nd u nfai r co m pe tit ion . W e dis ag ree . “ [T]h e le ga l st an da rds we a ppl y to [the FDUPTA] cl ai m are t he sa m e as tho se we have a

ppl ie d un de r se ct ion

43(a) of the La

nha m Ac t.” Cr ys tal Ent m’t &Fil mwo rk s, Inc . v . J

urad o , 643 F.3d 1 313, 132 3 (11t h C ir. 2011 ). “ Pla int iff’s fai lure to es ta bli sh a li ke lih ood of c onfus ion

a s to it s La

nha m Ac t c la im a lso e xti ngui she s it s c la im und er Flo rida

la w.” Custo m Mfg. and

Eng’g , Inc. v . Mid

wa y Se rv s., Inc
. , 508 F.3d 6 41, 6 52 (11 th C ir. 20 07). “ Co urts m ay use an ana ly sis of fed era l i nfringe m ent c la im s a s a ‘ m ea surin g st ic k’ in ev aluatin g th e m eri ts o f statela

w c la im s of u

nfai r co m pe tit ion .” Plan et

ary Moti on, Inc . v . Tec hspl osi on, Inc
. , 261 F.3d 1 188, 119 3 n.4 (11th Ci r. 2001 ). B Suntre e m ai nta ins tha

t t he dis tric t c ourt e rred i n c onc ludingtha t Sunt ree fai le d to de m onst

rat e that De rrico dire ct ly

infrin ge d on

it s tra de m ark by

usi ng Suntre e’ s na

m e in i ts b id t o th e CWM Proj ec t. Suntre e al so a sse rts t hat t he dis tric t
co urt e rred i n gra

nti ng s um m ary jud gm ent i n favor of Ec ose nse and Du ssi ch a s to its c la im a ga ins t t he m for co ntrib uto ry

infrin ge m ent. It

argue s th at

sum m ary jud gm ent sh oul d ha

ve be en grante d in

it s favor be ca

use the rec ord de m onst

rat es that t he y ind uc ed De rrico to use Suntre e’ s na m e in t he bid . Al te rnat ive ly , Sunt ree

13 Case: 11-13916 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 13 of 24argu es tha

t fa ct ua l di sput es e xis t t

hat sh oul d be trie d be fore a jury
. 1 The dis tric t c ourt h el d th at Suntre e “ fai le d to prove a ny dire ct tra de m ark infrin ge m ent by

De rrico , a

nd Suntre e’ s c la im

a ga ins t De fend ants fo r co ntrib uto ry infrin ge m ent ne ce ssa

rily fai ls.”(footn ote om itt ed). Suntre e’ s c la im of tra de m ark infrin ge m ent un de r Sec tio n 43 (a) of t he La nha m Ac t i s th at

theuseof it s na

m e in De rrico ’s CWM Proj ec t bi d c onst itute d a “ fal sede sig natio n of ori gin , fal se or m isl ea din g de sc ripti on o f fac t, o r fals e or m isl ea din g re pres entatio n of fa ct , whi ch is l ike ly to ca use c onfus ion .” 15 U.S.C . § 1 125(a)(1)(a). “ To beli ab le for
co ntrib uto ry

tra de m ark infrin ge m ent, a de fend ant m

ust ha ve . . . int entio na lly ind uc ed a not he r to i nfringe a

tra de m ark. ” 4 J. Thom as Mc Ca rthy , Mc Ca

rthy on Trad em arks and Un fai r Co m pe tit ion § 25 :18 at p. 25-54 (4th e d. 20 12). “ [A]ny lia bil ity for co ntrib uto ry

infrin ge m ent wi ll ne ce ssa rily de pe nd u pon whe the r or not the c ont ribut ingpa

rty int en de d to pa

rtic ipate in the infrin ge m ent or a ct ua lly kne w ab out theinfrin gin g a ct ivi tie s.” Mini Maid Se rv s. C o. v . Mai d Br iga deSy

s., Inc
. , 967 F.2d 15 16, 1 522 (11th Ci r. 1992 ). To d em onst

rat e that Ec ose nse and Du ssi ch
we re c ont ribut ory infrin ge rs, Sunt

ree wa s re qui red to p res ent e vid en ce tha t De rrico dire ct ly infrin ge d on

it s m ark. Id. at 15 21 (Hol din g th at c ont ribut ory infrin ge m ent is a de vic e by

whi ch “ ‘[l ]i ab ili ty

for tra de m ark infrin ge m ent [e xte nds] be y ond

14 Case: 11-13916 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 14 of 24tho sewho ac tua lly [infring e on] the m ark of anot he r.’” ) (quot ing Inwo od Lab s., Inc. v . Ive s Lab. , Inc
. , 456 U.S. 84 4, 85 9 (198 2)). In orde r to p revail on fe de ralc la im of tra de m ark infrin ge m ent a nd u nfai r co m pe tit ion , a tra de m ark owne r “ m

ust sho w (1) th at

it ha d tra de m ark right s in

the
m ark or nam e at

iss ue and (2) t

hat t he oth er p art

y ha d a dopt ed

a m ark or nam e that
wa s th e sa

m e, or c onfus ing ly

simila r to i ts m ark, suc h th at

c onsu m ers we re l ike ly to c onfus e the two .” Tana , 611 F.3d at 77 3 (c iti ng LoneSta r Stea kh ouse & Saloon, Inc . v . Longh orn Ste ak s, Inc
. , 106 F.3d 3 55, 3 58 (11 th C ir. 19 97)).

“ The la w of un fai r co m

pe tit ion ha s it s root s in

thec om m on-la w to rt of de ce it: it s ge ne ralc onc ern is w ith prote ct ing co nsum er

s from c onfus ion

a s to
sourc e. ” Boni to B oat

s v . Thund

er Cr aft Boat s , 489 U.S. 14 1, 15 7 (198 9) (em pha sis in origi na l). A l ike lih ood of c onfus ion a s to thesou

rce of a produ ct is
es ta bli she d us ingthe te st s et

forth i n AmBri t, Inc . v . K raf t, Inc
. , 812 F.2d 1 531 (11th Ci r. 1986 ), ce rt. de nie d, 481 U.S. 10 41 (19 87). T he re, t his Co urt s tate d: In de te rm ini ng wh et

he r a l ike lih ood of c onfus ion e xis ts, the fac t fin de r ev aluate s a num be r of el em ents i nc luding : the stre ngt

h of t he tra de [m ark] , th e simila rity of [the m arks ], the simila

rity of th e produc t[s] , th e simila rity of ret ai l outle ts a

nd p urch as ers , th e simila

rity of a dve rtis ing m ed ia use d, t he de fend ant’ s inte nt, an d a ct ua l c onfus ion
. Id. at 15 38. “ The iss ue of li ke lih ood of c onfus ion is not de te rm ine d by

m ere ly
an al y zi ng wh et

he r a m aj ority

of th e subs idi ary

fac tors ind ic at es tha

t su ch a 15 Case: 11-13916 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 15 of 24lik el iho od e xis ts.” Id. “ Ra the r, a co urt m

ust e va luate thewe ight t o be a cc orde d the indivi dua l fa ct ors a

nd t he n m ak e its ult im at e de ci sio n.” Id. “ The a ppropri at e we ight t o be giv en

to ea ch of th es e fac tors va

rie s wi th t he c irc um sta

nc es of th e ca se .” Id. Howe ve r, “ [o] f the se se ve n fa ct ors, we c onsi de r the ty pe of m ark an d the e vid en ce of a ct

ua l c onfus ion

to be thetwo m ost

im porta nt fa ct ors.” LoneSta r Ste ak hous e &Saloon v. Longh orn Ste ak s , 122 F.3d 1 379, 138 2 (11t h C ir. 19 97) (ci tin g Die te r v . B &H Indus. of Sou thw es t Florida, Inc
. , 880 F.2d 3 22, 3 26 (11 th Ci r.1989 ), ce rt. de nie d, 498 U.S. 95 0 (199 0)). No di sput e ex ist s a s to 1) th e ty pe or st reng th o f Suntre e’ s m ark; 2) th e simila rity of th e co m

pa nie s’ m arks ; 3) t

he simila rity of th e co m

pa nie s’ produ ct s; 4) thesimila

rity of th e ret ai l outle ts a

nd p urch as ers to whic h th e co m pa nie s m arke t; or 5) th e simila

rity of th e ad ve rtis ingm ed ia

thec om pa nie s us e. The dis tric t c ourt did not e rr in de te rm ini ng t

hat t he se fac tors we re n ot h elpful o r rele va nt. De rrico did not use Suntre e’ s m ark to i de nti fy Ec ose nse ’s produ ct , nor i s th ere any que sti on t hat t he c om pa nie s ha ve simila r na m es or m arks . Thedis posi tiv e iss ue in thi s c as e is whe the r Suntre e pres ente d e vid en ce tha t de m onst rat es tha t t he re i s a ge nui ne iss ue of m at eri alfac t i n di sput e rega rdingwhe the r Derric o us ed Suntre e’ s reputatio n to win

a bid and t he n us ed a “ba it-a nd-swi tc h” ta ct ic to subs tit ute Ec ose nse ’s ba ffle b oxe s for th ose of Sunt ree .
16 Case: 11-13916 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 16 of 24W e ag ree wit h th e dis tric t c ourt t

hat Sunt reefai le d to pre se nt a

ny e vid en ce that De rrico int en de d to c onfus e the Ci ty a s to whos e ba ffle b oxe s wou ld b e ins ta lle d. B oth

Ro be rtson

a nd C at te y te sti fie d du

ring t he ir deposi tio ns t

hat t he y int en de d to sub sti tut e Ec ose nse ’s ba ffle b oxe s on ce the y we re g ive n th e co ntra ct unl es s “ no s ubst itu

te wa s a llo we d.” C at

te y inq uire d a bout a sub sti tut ion

for ba ffle boxe s at a m ee tin g prio r to s ubmitt ingDe rrico ’s bid a nd wa s re ferre d to the spe ci fic at ion s sh ee t i n th e bid din g do cu m ents, whic h sp ec ific al ly a llo we d for “ or eq ua l” sub sti tut ion s for ba ffle b oxe s. It is undi sput ed

tha t, i n li sti ng Suntre e in i ts bid , De rrico did

what wa s re qui red by

the Inst ruct ion s to Bi dde rs, whi ch provi de d that t he c ont rac t wo uld

be a warded “ wit hout c onsi de rat ion

of pos sib le sub sti tut e or ‘o r eq ua l’ it em s” and t

hat “ ap pli ca

tio n for su ch

a cc ep ta nc e [would ] not

be
co nsi de red by

the Engi ne er u

nti l a fte r the Effec tiv e Date of th e Agre em ent.” Suntre e ha s fa ile d to de m onst rat e that De rrico int en de d to de ce ive theCi ty or th at De rrico hid

it s inte nti on t o se ek

a pprova l of a

sup pli er wh ose produ ct ’s spe ci fic at ion s we re e qua l t o Sunt ree ’s produ ct

a s a sub sti tut e ba ffle b ox s uppl ie r. Suntre e ha s a lso fai le d to pre se nt e vid en cetha t t he Ci ty wa s c onfus ed

at a ny tim e, not e ve n in the ir “ ini tia l i nte res t” or at t he “poi nt o f sa le ,” a

bout thequa lit y of ba ffle b oxe s th ey

req uire d or t he fac t t hat c ont rac tors co uld

req ue st a pprova ls o f subs tit ute sup pli ers if th e en gin ee r for the c ity de te rm ine d th at

theprodu ct

to be

17 Case: 11-13916 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 17 of 24subs tit

ute d wa s of e qua l qu al ity . TheInst ruct ion s to Bi dde rs st at ed tha t t he requ ire m ent i nc lud ed

in thespe ci fic at ion s to ins ta ll ba ffle b oxe s from Suntre e “ or eq ua l” wa s “ to e sta

bli sh t he ty pe , func tio n, a

ppe ara nc e an d qu al ity

req uire d” for
use in the proje ct . C at

te y te sti fie d in

his de posi tio n th at

De rrico sub m itt ed

it s requ es t for a

pprova l of E co se nse a s a

sub sti tut e ba ffle b ox s uppl ie r knowi ng t hat

“ if no subs tit

ute wa s a llo we d [by

the proje ct

e ngi ne er] , . . . the n th e onl y produ ct to be ins ta lle d wou ld b e Suntre e’ s a nd [De rrico ] woul d ha

ve ins ta lle d it .” Be ca use Suntre e fai le d to pre se nt e vid en ce of a n inte nt t o m isl ea d or
co nfuse , or of a ct

ua l c onfus ion , we ne ed

not rea ch theque sti on wh et

he r ini tia l int ere st c onfus ion

is ac tio na

ble in the Ele ve nth

Ci rcui t. T he dis tric t c ourt c orrec tly
co nc lud ed

tha t Sunt ree fai le d to de m onst

rat e that De rrico ha d in fringe d on it s tra de m ark whe n it

li ste d Sunt

ree a s th e supp lie r of ba ffle b oxe s in it s bi d a nd requ es te d a

n “ or e qua l” sub sti tut ion

of Ec ose nse a fte r be ingawarded thec ont rac t. It foll ows t

ha t be ca use the re wa s no e vid en ce of in fringe m ent, Suntre e’ s c la im tha t Ec ose nse and Du ssi ch

c ont ribut ed to the infrin ge m ent ne ce ssa rily fai ls. C Suntre e al so c ont en ds t

hat su m m ary jud gm ent wa s in ap propria te a s to it s cl ai m a ga ins t Ec ose nse and Du ssi ch of fal se de sig natio n of ori gin and fa lse ad ve rtis ingreg ardi ng t

he use of im ag es of Sunt

ree ’s produ ct s by

Ec ose nse in a

18 Case: 11-13916 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 18 of 24broc hure and a m ai nte na nc e pres entatio n be ca

use ge nui ne fac tua l di sput es e xis t a s to t his c la im
. 1 Suntre e as se rts t

hat Ec ose nse ’s use of pho tog raph s of Suntre e’ s prod uc t i n prom oti ona l m at eri al s wa s a n atte m pt t o pa ss o ff Suntre e’ s ba ffle b oxe s a s th ei r own. “ Pass ingoff (or pa lm ingoff, a s it is som etim es c al le d) oc cu rs whe n a produc er misrepres ents h is o wn go ods or se rvic es a s so m eo ne e lse ’s
. . . . ‘ Re ve rse pa ssi ng o ff,’ a s it s na

m e im pli es , is theopp osi te : Th e produc er misrepres ents
som eo ne e lse ’s goo ds o r se rvic es a s hi s own .” Dast ar C orp. v . Twe nti et

h C en tur y Fox Fil m C orp. , 539 U.S. 23 , 27 n.1 (20 03). To p reva il on a

fal se de signa

tio n of ori gin

c la im , a pla int iff m

ust sho w it wa s e ith er a ct

ua lly or li ke ly to be dam ag ed by the fac t t hat t he de fend ant us ed

a “ fal se de sig natio n of ori gin , fal se or m isl ea din g de sc ripti on o f fac t, o r fals e or m isl ea din g re pres entatio n of fa ct , whi ch wa s li ke ly

to ca use c onfus ion , or to c au se m ist ak e, or to de ce ive
. . . as to the origi n, sp onso rship , or a pprova l of his or he r good s, s ervi ce s, or c om m erc ia l a ct ivi tie s by an oth er p ers on. Lipsc he r v . LRP Pu bl’ng., Inc
. , 266 F.3d 1 305, 131 2-1313 (11th Ci r. 2001 ) (quot ing15 U .S.C. § 11 25(a )(1)(A))
. As s ta te d a bove , to de m onst

rat e infrin ge m ent, a

pa rty “ m ust sho w (1) th at

it ha d tra de m ark right s in

the m ark or nam e at

iss ue and (2) t

hat t he oth er p art

y ha d

19 Case: 11-13916 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 19 of 24ad opt ed

a m ark or nam e that wa s th e sam e, or c onfus ing ly simila r to i ts m ark, suc h that c onsu

m ers we re l ike ly

to co nfuse thetwo .” Tana , 611 F.3d at 77 3 (c ita tio n om itt ed). W e ag ree wit

h th e Sixth

Ci rcui t’ s op ini on i n Jo hnso n v . J one s , 149 F.3d 4 94 (6th C ir. 19 98), t

hat wh ere “ thede fend ant ha s ta ke n th e pla intiff’s produ ct and h as repre se nte d it

to be his own work[,] ” thefirst fivefac tors of theli ke lih ood of
co nfusi on t es t a

re i rrele va

nt. Id. at 50 3. As to fac tor s ix, Suntre e fai le d to pre se nt
ev ide nc e that Ec ose nse ha d a ny int entio n to portra

y Suntre e’ s prod

uc t a s it s own . In fac t, Ec ose nse ’s im

m ediate de struc tio n of t

he broc hure a

nd i ts e limina

tio n of t he
m ai nte na nc e pres entatio n from

it s websi tesup port i ts a sse rtion tha t Ec ose nse did not int en d to c onfus e pot entia l c ust om ers wit h ph oto s of Suntre e’ s prod uc t. Se e Ca n-Am Eng’g C

o. v . He nde rso n Gl

ass, Inc
. , 814 F.2d 2 53, 2 57 (6t h C ir. 19 87) (“ Pla int iff co nfuse s th e int entio na l us e of thepho to w ith thekin d of i nte nt t o m isrepres ent wh ic h is the c orne rston e of a m one y dam ag e ac tio n. W e not e in t his rega rd theswi ft a

nd e ffec tiv e rem ed ia l a ct ion [Defe nda nt] und ert ook im

m ed iate ly upon be ingnot ifie d of i ts e rror. Unde r suc h c irc um sta nc es we find no fa lse repre se ntatio n whi ch

is ac tio na

ble und er t

he La nha m Ac t.” ). As t o fa ct or se ve n of the AmBri t

te st, the rec ord re fle ct s th at the re wa s no c onfus ion

on t he pa rt of a ny of the CWM Proj ec t’ s e ngi ne ers . Ac co rding ly , th e dis tric t c ourt d id n ot e rr in

20 Case: 11-13916 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 20 of 24co nc lud ingtha t Sunt ree fai le d to pre se nt e vid en ce of a li ke lih ood of c onfus ion

or el em ents o f a c la im

for fal sede sig natio n of ori gin in Ec ose nse ’s use of im ag es of Suntre e’ s prod

uc ts i n e ith er i ts m ai nte na nc e pres entatio n or i ts b roch ure. 2 Suntre e al so a sse rts t

hat Ec ose nse infrin ge d on it s tra de m ark by

fal se ly ad ve rtis ingusi ng i m ag es of Sunt ree ’s ba ffle b oxe s in

it s broc hure and m ai nte na nc e pres entatio n. “ A La

nha m Ac t fa lse a dve rtis ingc la im a rise s whe n ‘ [a] ny

pe rson who, on o r in c onne ct ion

wit h a ny goo ds . . . us es in co m

m erc e any

. . . fal se or m isl ea din g de sc ripti on o f fac t, o r fals e or m isl ea din g re pres entatio n of fa ct , whi ch . . . i n c om

m erc ia l a dve rtis ingor prom oti on, misrepres ents t he na ture , ch ara ct eri sti cs , qua lit ie s, or g eo grap hic origi n of hi s or h er o r an oth er p ers on’ s good s[.] ’” Na tur

al A nsw er s, Inc . v . Smi thK

lin e Be ec ham C

orp. , 529 F.3d 1 325, 1330 (11th

Ci r. 2008 ) (quot ing15 U .S.C. § 11 25(a)). “ The int ent of t his provi sio n is t o prot ec t c om

m erc ia l i nte res ts t

hat ha ve be en ha rm ed by a c om pe tit or’ s fa lse ad ve rtis ing , a

nd t o se cu

re t o th e busi ne ss c om

m uni ty thea dva nta ge s of re put at ion
an d go od wi ll by

pre ve nti ng t

he ir di ve rsion

from tho se who ha

ve c reate d th em

to tho sewho ha

ve not .” Id. at 13 30-31 (inte rnalquo ta tio n m arks , a lte rat ion s a

nd ci tatio n omitt ed). To e sta bli sh a prim a fac ie c as e of fal se a dve rtis ingpursu ant t o 15 U.S.C
.

21 Case: 11-13916 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 21 of 24§ 11 25(a ), a pla intiff m ust e sta bli sh t hat t he de fend ant: 1. Use s a fal se or m isl ea din g A. De sc ripti on o f fac t or B. Repres enta

tio n of fa ct ; 2. In int ers ta

te c om m erc e; 3. And i n c onne ct ion

wit h go ods or se rvic es ; 4. In c om

m erc ia l a dve rtis ingor prom oti on; 5. Whe n th e de sc ripti on o r repre se nta tio n misrepres ents the nature , qua lit ie s ge ogra phi c origi n of A. Th e de fend ant’ s food s, s ervi ce s or c om m erc ia l ac tiv iti es or B. The goo ds, s ervi ce s or c om m erc ia l a ct ivi tie s of an oth er p ers on; 6. And p la int iff ha s be en or is li ke ly

to be dam ag ed

by the se a ct s. 5 J. Thom as Mc Ca

rthy , Mc Ca

rthy on T rade m arks and Un fai r Co m pe tit ion § 27 :24 (4th e d. 20 07) (foot

not es om itt ed). The m ost wid el y -ac cepte d te st fo r de te rm ini ng wh et he r som et hin g is

“ co m m erc ia l a dve rtis ingor prom oti on” is se t forth in Gord on &Bre ac h Sc i. Publish er s S.A . v . Am. In st. of Phy

sic s , 859 F. Supp. 1521 (S.D.N.Y. 1 994). In tha t
ca se , th e Dist

ric t C ourt fo r the South ern Dist ric t of Ne w York s ta

te d: In orde r for repre se ntatio ns t o c onstitute “ co m m erc ia l ad ve rtis ingor promoti on” und er Se ct ion [1125 (a)] , th ey m ust be : (1) c om

m erc ia l sp ee ch ; (2) by

a de fend ant wh o is i n c om m erc ia l c om

pe tit ion wit h pl ai nti ff; (3) for the purpos e of influe nc ingc onsu m ers to buy

de fend ant’ s good s or s ervi ce s. Whil e the rep res entatio ns n ee d no t be m ad e in a “ cl as sic a dve rtis ingc am

pa ign ,” but

m ay co nsi st i nst ea d of m ore inform alty pe s of “prom oti on,” the rep res entatio ns (4) m

ust be dis se m inate d su ffici ently
22 Case: 11-13916 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 22 of 24to t he rel ev ant pu

rcha sin g pu

bli c to c onst itute “ ad ve rtis ing ” or “prom oti on” wit hin tha t i ndus try . Gord on &Bre ac h , 859 F. Supp. at 153 5-36. Suntre e ha s fa ile d to de m onst rat e that the re i s a ge nui ne iss ue of m at eri alfac t i n di sput e rega rdingwhe the r the broc hure
an d m ai nte na

nc e pres enta

tio n we re c reate d “ for the purpo se of in flue nc ing
co nsum ers to buy

de fend ant’ s go ods or se rvic es ” an d th at the y we re “ dis se minate d suffic ie ntl y

to the rel ev ant pu

rcha sin g pu

bli c to c onst itu

te ‘ ad ve rtis ing ’ or ‘p rom oti on’ wit

hin tha t i ndus try .” Id. The rec ord sh ows t hat t he m ai nte na

nc e pres entatio n wa s c reate d at t he req ue st o f an e xis tin g c lie nt. It wa s no t c reate d to prom ote or a dve rtis e Ec ose nse ’s produ ct s, but for t rai nin g c ust om ers who ha d al rea dy purc ha se d th e produc t. T he e ngi ne ers who worke d on theCWM Proj ec t te sti fie d th at

broc hure s wou ld n ot b e at a ll he lpfulin the ir de te rm ina tio n a s to whe the r or not

the y woul d bu y , or a llo w useof, a

produ ct li ke a ba ffle b ox. Suntre e al so fa ile d to pre se nt a ny e vid en ce tha

t t he broc hure wa s a ct

ua lly dis se m ina te d to any pot entia l c ust om ers . W e ag ree wit h th e Dist ric t C ourt fo r the Northe rn Dis tric t of Ge orgia in Sc hüt z C ont ain er Sy s., Inc . v . Maus er

Co rp. , 201 2 U.S. Dis t. LE XIS 44012 (N.D. Ga . Ma r. 28, 2 012), t

hat “whe re t

he c ust om er m arke t i s pa

rtic ula rly sm al l[,] c ourts m ay

find a sta te m ent t o be suffic ie ntl y dis se m ina te d to c onst itute ‘ co m

m erc ia l a dve rtis ingor prom oti on,’ e ve n th ough

23 Case: 11-13916 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 23 of 24onl y

dis tribute d to a

few cu sto m ers (or ev en

one ).” Id. at 96 . How ev er, s im ila r to 1 the plaint iff in Sc hut

z C ont ain er , Sunt

ree “ fai l[e d] to put

forward any e vid en ce rega rdingthe num

be r of pot entia l c onsu

m ers . . . to whom

the sta te m ents w ere dis se m ina te d,” thu s fa ili ng t

he de m onst

rat e tha t “ a rea sona

ble jury c oul d find

[the sta te m ents] to co nst itute ‘ co m m erc ia l a dve rtis ingor prom oti on.’ ” Id. at 96 -97. T he dis tric t c ourt did n ot e rr in gra nti ng s um m ary jud gm ent i n fa

vor of Ec ose nseand Duss ic h a s to Suntre e’ s fa lse a dve rtis ingc la im
. CON CL USION For the rea sons se t forth

a bove , th e dis tric t c ourt did n ot e rr in gra nti ng sum m ary jud gm ent i n favor of Ec ose nse and Du ssi ch , a nd d en y ingSuntre e’ s m oti on for s um

m ary jud gm ent. AFFIRME D.

In this Ci rcuit, “unpublished opinions are not binding pre cede nt but they may be cited a s 1 persua sive authority .” See11 TH C I R . R. 36-2; U.S. v. Rodriguez- Lopez , 363 F.3d 1134, 1138 n.4 (11th Cir. 2004). 24

Case: 11-13916 Date Filed: 09/05/2012 Page: 24 of 24