# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 27 57

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

East Iowa Pla st ic s, In c.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

PI, In c.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa , W at erl oo

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 11 , 20 16

Fil ed : Au gu st 11 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SHEPHERD, BEAM, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Thi s tra de m ark cas e in vo lv es a ch al le ng e t o t h e di st ric t co ur t’s award of

at to rn ey ’s f

ees to th e pl ai nt iff

. W e fin d th at th e di st ric t co ur t la ck ed juri sd ic ti on tocan cel th e de f e n da nt ’s fed eral tra de m ark reg is tra ti on s, an d th at as a res ul t, th e pl ai nt iff was n ot en ti tl ed to att or ne y ’s fees

. 1

I

The hi st or y of th is cas e be gi ns no t wit h th e pa rti es , bu t wit h a co m pa ny cal le d

Ken Tech

, whi ch was th e own er of th e “ PAKST ER ” tra de m ark in th e la te 19 90 s.

Ken Tech us ed th e m ark in co nn ect io n wit h th e m ol de d pl as ti c go od s it m an uf act ur ed

fo r us e in th e e g g a n d po ul try in du st rie s. Two co m m on ly-us ed m et ho ds of

m an uf act ur in g pl as ti c go od s are th erm of or m in g an d i n

je c t io n m ol di ng : th e fo rm er

in vo lv es he at in g a fla t sh eet of pl as ti c un ti l pl ia bl e an d th en fo rm in g it ov er a m ol d,

w hi le th e la tt er in vo lv es in jecti ng he at ed pl as ti c in to a cl os ed m ol d. See J. Sco t t

Sm it h & Y.H. Hui

, Fo od Pro ces si n g: Pri nc ip le s an d App li cat io ns 11 0 (2 00 8)

. Ken Tech ’s op erat io ns us ed bo th tec hn iq ue s.

Ken Tech m an uf

act ur ed it s th erm of

or m ed PAKSTER go od s in In de pe nd en ce,

Io wa, an d it s in

jecti on m ol de d PAKSTER pr od uc ts in Hop ki ns vi ll e, Ken tu ck y , un ti l

19 97

, w he n it so ld bo th pr od uc t li ne s. Its th erm of or m ed go od s li ne was so ld to a

co m pa ny cal le d East Io wa Pl as ti cs (EIP), al so lo cat ed in In de pe nd en ce. The sa le was

acco m pl is he d th ro ug h an Ass et Pu rch as e Agr eem en t (APA), whi ch tra ns ferr ed to EIP

Ken Tech ’s en ti re m an uf act ur in g op erat io n in Io wa, in cl ud in g al l th e a s s et s

co m pr is in g i ts m an uf

act ur in g fa ci li ty.

Am on g th e as se ts tra ns ferr ed to EIP by th e APA were Ken Tech ’s rig ht s to th e

PAKSTER tra de m ark

. Bu t th e APA in cl ud ed a “ li cen se ba ck ,” whi ch pr ov id ed th at

Ken Tech wou ld be gr an te d “ a li cen se t o us e th e ‘Paks te r’ na m e an d m ark in

co nn ect io n wit h th e pr od uc ti on an d sal e of in jecti on m ol de d pl as ti c pr od uc ts .” The

The so ur ce o f ou r juri sd ic ti on is 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1. 1

-2

-li cen se ba ck sp eci fie d th at th e li cen se was to b e “ex cl us iv e

. . . wit hi n Nor th

Am eri ca,” “ pe rp et ua l an d i rrev oc ab le ,” “ ro y al ty-free,” an d “ free ly ass ig na bl e.”

The ass ig na bi li ty pro vi si on di d no t go un us ed

. Sh or tl y aft erwar ds , KenTec h

so ld it s in jecti on m ol ds

, whi ch were im pr in t e d w i t h t he PAKSTER m ark

, to PI, a

co m pa ny ba se d in Ath en s, Tenn es se e. Fo r th e ne xt se ve ral y ears , EIP pr oc eed ed to

m ak e PAKSTER-b ran de d pr od uc ts us in g th e th erm of or m in g m et ho d, whi le PI m ad e

PAKSTER-b ran de d pr od uc ts us in g in jecti on m o l d i n g

. Fo r th e m os t pa rt, th e two

co m pa ni es m ad e di ffer en t pr od uc ts un der the PA K ST E R br an d: EIP m ad e ve nt il at io n

do or s, feed er tra y s, an d a li gh t ho od

, whi le PI m ad e ch ic ke n c o o p s , e gg ba sk et s, a

ch ic k bo x, an d pl as ti c pa ll et s. The on e pr od uc t bo th co m pa ni es m ad e , a l b e i t u s in g

di ffer en t m an uf

act ur in g m et ho ds

, was eg g tra y s, whi ch th e pa rti es an d th e d i s t r ic t

co ur t re fer t o a s “ eg g fl at s.”

Ten y ears la te r, PI ap pl ie d fo r an d a cq ui red two tra de m ark reg is tra ti on s from

th e Uni te d St at es Pat en t an d Trad em ark Offi ce: on e fo r th e wor d “ PAKSTER” it se lf

an d th e ot he r fo r an im ag e of a ro os te r wit h th e wor d “ PAKSTER.” In fil li ng ou t bo th

ap p l i c a t io ns , PI cert ifi ed

– fal se ly, as it no w ack no wled ge s – th at to th e be st of it s

“ kn owl ed ge an d be li ef no ot he r pe rs on , fir m, c or po rat io n, or as so ci at io n ha [d ] th e rig ht to us e th e m ark in co m m erce .” In real it y , PI ha d lo ng be en aware of EIP’s us e

of th e PAKSTER m ark

.

On Ja nu ary 27

, 20 12

, PI se nt EIP a ceas e a n d de si st le tt er, accu si ng it of

tra de m ark in fri ng em en t and un fai r co m pe ti ti on un de r th e Lan ha m Act for us in g th e

“ PAKSTER” tra de m ark

. It th reat en ed le ga l act io n un le ss EIP res po nd ed wit h writ te n

as su ran ces th at it wou ld st op us in g t h e P A K S TER tra de m ark

. EIP res po nd ed on

Mar ch 5, 20 12

, ex pl ai ni ng th at it ha d bo ug ht th e PAKSTER tra de m ark fro m Ken Tech

a n d at ta ch in g a co py of th e APA. PI rep li ed on Apr il 3, 20 12

, co nt en di ng th a t

be cau se of th e APA ’s li cen se ba ck

, an d th e fact th at PI, un li ke EIP, po ss es se d a

-3

-fed eral ly-regi st ered tra de m ark

, EIP ha d no rig ht to us e th e PAKSTER m ark in

co nn ect io n wi th eit he r th erm of or m ed or i njec ti on m ol de d p ro du ct s.

Sh or tl y th erea fte r, PI o ffer ed to sel l i ts PAKSTER m ol ds to EIP fo r ab ou t $ 3

m il li on

. W he n EIP refu se d to bu y , PI se nt a th ird ceas e an d de si st l e t t er on

Decem be r 4, 20 12

, rep eat in g th e cl ai m s in it s se co nd le tt er an d ag ai n th reat en in g su it

if EIP refu se d t o s to p u si ng th e PAKSTER m ark

.

Bu t in st ead of P I s u in g EIP, on Decem be r 10

, 20 12

, EIP su ed PI, br in gi ng

cl ai m s for: (1 ) can cel la ti on of th e fed eral reg is tra ti on s of th e PAKSTER m ark s and

da m ag es un de r se ct io ns 37 an d 38 of th e Lan ha m Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 11 19

, 11 20 ; (2 )

fal se st at em en ts an d un fai r co m p e t i t i o n un de r se ct io n 43 (a) of th e Lan ha m Act, 15

U.S.C. § 11 25 (a); (3 ) tra de m ark in fri ng eme n t , m is ap pr op ria ti on , m is us e an d un fai r

co m pe ti ti on un de r se ct io n 43 (a) of th e Lan ha m Act an d co m m on la w; (4 ) co nv ers io n;

an d (5 ) br each of co nt ract

. It ad di ti on al ly so ug ht a d ecl arat io n th at it own ed th e

PAKSTER tr ad em ark

.

On Ja nu ary 30

, 20 13

, PI fil ed co un te rcl ai m s fo r tra de m ark in fri ng em en t un de r

se ct io n 32 of th e Lan ha m Act, 15 U.S.C. § 11 14

, an d un fai r co m pe ti ti on un de r se ct io n

43 (a) of th e Lan ha m Act. On Mar ch 12

, 20 15

, ab ou t a m on th b e f o r e t ria l was

s ch ed ul ed to be gi n, PI vo lu nt ari ly di sm is se d it s co un te rcl ai m s wit h pr ejud ic e. EI P

th en di sm is se d it s br each of co nt ract cl ai m on Apr il 3, 20 15

. The cas e pr oc eed ed to

tri al on Apr il 13

, 20 15

. At th e en d of th e tri al

, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d PI’s m ot io n

f o r ju d gm en t as a m at te r of la w on cl ai m s (2 )– (4 ) ab ov e, fin di ng th at th e ev i d e n c e

was in su ffi ci en t fo r th e jury to a ward da m ag es

.

The di st ric t co ur t th en is su ed fin di ng s of fact an d co nc l u si on s of la w. As

rel ev an t to th is ap pe al

, it can cel le d PI’s two fed eral tra de m ark reg is tra ti on s an d fo un d

th at EIP was th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty “ be cau se it es ta bl is he d it s own ers hi p of th e

Trad em ark .” It he ld th at PI’s “ act io ns he re were de li be rat e, wil lfu l, an d ta ke n in ba d

-4

-fai th

, m ak in g th is a n e x c e p ti on al cas e un de r se ct io n [3 5] of th e Lan ha m Act,

warra nt in g reas on ab le a t t o r n e ys ’ fees .” And it fu rth er he ld th at fees were “ al so

warra nt ed un de r se ct io n [3 8] du e to frau d on th e PTO.” It fin is he d by award in g EIP

at to rn ey ’s fees of $ 58 5,0 00 an d d en y in g EIP an in jun ct io n.

PI no w ap pe al s th e gr an t of at to rn ey ’s fees

, arg ui ng th at se ct io n 3 8 o f th e

Lan ha m Act d oe s n ot pe rm it fee s hi fti ng , and th at EIP di d no t prev ai l on it s sect io n

35 cla im s.

II

In award in g at to rn ey ’s fees

, th e di st ric t co ur t ci te d bo th se ct io n 38 an d se ct io n

35 of th e Lan ha m Act. W e ad dr es s each of th es e two po te nt ia l ba se s fo r an award of

at to r n ey ’s fees in tu rn , an d th en di sc us s whe th er EIP is en ti tl ed to at to rn ey ’s fees

ba se d o n o bt ai ni ng a de cl arat io n t ha t i t o wne d t he PAKSTER tra de m ark

.

A

Sect io n 38 of th e Lan ha m Act, co di fie d at 15 U.S.C. § 11 20

, pr oh ib it s

reg is te rin g a tra de m ark wit h th e Uni te d St at es Pat en t an d Trad em ark Offi ce by m ean s

of a fal se or f

rau du le nt de cl arat io n o r rep res en ta ti on . The s ta tu te read s i n fu ll :

Any pe rs on who sh al l pr oc ur e reg is tra ti on in th e Pat en t an d Trad em ark
Offi ce of a m ark by a fals e o r frau du le nt de cl arat io n or rep res en ta ti on ,

or al or in writ in g, or by an y fal se m ean s, sh al l be li ab le in a ci vi l act io n by an y pe rs on in

jure d th ereb y fo r an y da m ag es su st ai ne d in co ns eq ue nc e th ereo f.

15 U.S.C. § 11 20

. The di st ric t cou rt fou nd th at al th ou gh PI had vi ol at ed se ct io n 38

, EIP ha d no t su ff

e r e d a n y d a mages fro m th at vi ol at io n an d was no t en ti tl ed to an

in jun ct io n. EIP d oe s n ot ch al le ng e ei th er co nc lu si on on ap pe al

.

-5

-D e s p i t e fin di ng no da m ag es , th e di st ric t co ur t wen t on to can cel PI’s fed eral

reg is tra ti on s of

th e PAKSTER tr ad em ark s as a rem ed y fo r th e se ct io n 38 vi ol at io n.

See 15 U.S.C. § 11 19 (p erm it ti ng co ur ts to can cel tra de m ark reg is tra ti on s in an act io n

in vo lv in g a reg is te red m ark ). EIP arg ue s th at it th eref or e pr ev ai le d on it s se ct io n 38

cl ai m , an d th at th is pro vi de s a bas is fo r th e di st ric t cou rt’s award of at to rn ey ’s fees

. Alt ho ug h ne it he r pa rty rai se d an y juri sd i c t i o na l is su es in th ei r in it ia l br ie fin g, we

as ke d th em to fil e su pp le m en ta l b rie fs on whet he r th e di st ric t cou rt had juri sd ic ti on

to can cel th e fed eral reg is tra ti on s. See Hug gi ns v. Fed Ex Gro un d Pack ag e Sy s., In c.,

56 6 F.3 d 77 1, 77 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (“ W e are ob li ga te d to co ns id er su a sp on te ou r juri sd ic ti on to en te rta in a cas e whe re, as he re, we be li ev e th at juri sd ic ti on may b e

la ck in g.” ). Havi ng care fu ll y rev ie wed th e b rie fs , we con cl ud e th at it di d n ot

. 2

Arti cl e I I I of th e Co ns ti tu ti on co nf in es fed eral co ur ts to de ci di ng “ Cas es ” or

“ Co nt r o ve rs ie s,” a req ui rem en t th at ha s be en in te rp ret ed to req ui re pa rti es su in g in

fed eral co ur t to ha ve su ffer ed a “ co nc ret e an d pa rti cu la riz ed in jury” in or de r fo r a

fed eral co ur t to ha ve juri sd ic ti on to de ci de th ei r cl ai m s. Hol li ng swo rth v. Perr y , 13 3

S. Ct

. 26 52

, 26 61 (2 01 3)

. At th e ou ts et of a su it

, a n o n f r i v o l o u s cl ai m of in

jury is

en ou gh to es ta bl is h juri sd ic ti on , ev en if th e po ss ib il it y ex is ts th at th e pl ai nt i f f wil l

ul ti m at el y no t be ab le to su ccee d in it s cl ai m – el se co ur ts wou ld ha ve to res ol ve th e

m eri ts of th e cl ai m in or de r to de te rm in e whe th er th ey ha d juri sd ic ti on to he ar it in th e

fir st pl ace. See Bel l v. Hoo d, 32 7 U.S. 67 8, 68 2 (1 94 6) ; Ci ty of St

. Lou is v. Dep ’t of

Tran sp ., 93 6 F.2 d 15 2 8

, 1 53 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 91 ). It is eq ua ll y tru e, ho wev er, th at

st an di ng m

us t “ pe rs is t th ro ug ho ut al l st ag es of li ti ga ti on ,” Hol li ng swo rth

, 13 3 S. Ct

.
at 26 61

, an d m

us t be de m on st rat ed “ se pa rat el y fo r each fo rm of rel ie f so ug ht ,”

Fri en ds of th e Eart h, In c. v. Laid la w Env iro nm en ta l Serv s. (TOC), In c., 52 8 U.S. 16 7,

W e gr an t EIP’s m ot io n for leav e to fil e a su pp le m en ta l rep ly br ie f. W e de ny 2

as m o o t EI P ’s mo t io n to su pp le m en t th e reco rd on ap pe al wit h an ex cerp t fro m th e tri al tra ns cri pt , si nc e th e ex cerp t is ava il ab le as do cu m en t 1 51 in th e d is tri ct co ur t’s
do ck et

. “ Part s of th e reco rd m ay be rel ie d on by th e co ur t or th e pa rti es ev en th ou gh

no t i nc lu de d i n t he ap pe nd ix .” Fed . R. App . P. 30 (a)( 2)

.

-6

-18 5 (2 00 0) (n ot in g th at a pl ai nt iff can ha ve s t a n d i n g t o pu rs ue da m ag es bu t no t

in jun ct iv e rel ie f).

EI P ’s s t an di ng to se ek can cel la ti on of th e tra de m ark un de r se ct io n 37 of th e

La n ha m Act, co di fie d at 15 U.S.C. § 11 19

, was de pe nd en t on it s se ct io n 38 c l a i m,

be cau se se ct io n 37 on ly pr ov id es a rem ed y fo r so m e ot he r vi ol at io n of th e tra de m ark

la ws, no t an in d e p e n d e n t cau se of act io n. See Airs Aro m at ic s, LLC v. Vict or ia ’s

S e c r e t S to res Bran d Mg m t., In c., 74 4 F.3 d 59 5, 59 9 (9 th Ci r. 20 14 ); Nik e, In c

. v

. Alre ad y , LLC, 66 3 F.3 d 89

, 98 (2 d Ci r. 20 11 ), aff’d on ot he r gr ou nd s, 13 3 S. Ct

. 72 1
(2 01 3) ; Ditri v. Col dwe ll Ban ke r Res id en ti al Affi li at es , In c., 95 4 F.2d 86 9, 87 3 (3d

Ci r. 19 92 ); W in ds u r f

i n g I n t ’l In c. v. AMF In c., 82 8 F.2 d 75 5, 75 8– 59 (Fed

. Ci r.

19 87 ); 5 McC art hy on Trad em ark s § 3 0: 11 0 (2 01 0)

. Onc e th e di st ric t co ur t ha d

de te rm in ed th at EIP di d no t su ffer an y da m ag es fro m PI’s vi ol at io n of se ct io n 38

, th ere was no fu rth er ba si s fo r EIP to ha ve st an di ng to se e k c a n c e l l a t io n of th e

PAKSTER reg is tra ti on s. In so ho ld in g, we do no t m ean to su gg es t th at mo n e ta ry 3

Bec au se EI P s o u g h t tra de m ark can cel la ti on so le ly as a rem ed y fo r PI’s 3

vi ol at io n of se ct io n 38 of th e La n h a m A c t by su bm it ti ng a fal se or frau du le nt
de cl arat io n to th e PTO, we ne ed no t co ns id er whe th er it wou ld ha ve st an di ng to se ek

c a n cel la ti on ba se d on PI’s co un te rcl ai m s fo r tra de m ark in fri ng em en t or u n f a i r

co m pe ti ti on , or ba se d on PI’s th reat s to su e fo r tra de m ark in fri ng em en t. In an y ev en t,

we th in k th ere is no lo ng er an y real is ti c po ss ib il it y th at PI co ul d s ue EIP fo r in fri ng in g th e PAKSTER tra de m ark in co nn ect io n wit h EIP’s th erm of or m ed pl as ti c

pr od uc ts

, gi ve n th e di sm is sa l wit h pr ejud ic e of it s co un te rcl ai m s, se e Lark en , In c. v. Wr ay , 18 9 F.3 d 72 9, 73 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ), an d th e di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu s i o n

–

un ch al le ng ed on ap pe al

– th at EIP ha s th e rig ht to us e th e PAKS TER tra de m ark in

co nn ect io n wit h it s pr od uc ts

. In it s su p p l e men ta l br ie f, PI ag rees th at th e di st ric t

co ur t’s co nc lu si on s vi ti at e an y su ch th reat

. See Alre ad y , LLC v. Nik e, In c. , 13 3 S.

Ct

. 72 1, 72 8 (2 01 3) (“ Nik e, ha vi ng ta ke n th e po si ti on in co ur t th at th ere is no

pr os pe ct of su ch a [fu tu re in fri ng in g] sh oe , wou ld be ha rd pr e s s e d to as se rt th e

co nt rary do wn th e ro ad .”). So ev en if PI’s th reat s of su it ga ve EIP st an di ng to pu rs ue

tra de m ark can cel la ti on at th e ou ts et of th is su it

, th at ba si s fo r st an di ng is no w ab se nt

.

-7

-da m ag es are th e on ly po ss ib le ba si s fo r EIP’s st an di ng

. Bu t we se e no ev id en ce ev en

of no n- m on et ary in

juri es to EIP.

It m ay well be th at PI’s fal se an d frau du le nt de cl ar a t io n m is le d th e PTO i nt o

reg is te rin g it s tra de m ark s. And it is pl au s i b l e t o s u p po se th at th ere is so m e

ge ne r a l i zed in

jury th at res ul ts fro m th e PTO’ s Reg is te r of Trad em ark s co nt ai ni ng

m ark s th at i t sh ou ld n’t co nt ai n. Bu t an y su ch in jury is no t pa rti cu la r to EIP, an d

can no t su pp or t it s st an di ng to br in g a se ct io n 38 su it

. See Sp ok eo , In c. v. Ro bi ns , 13 6

S. Ct

. 1 5 4 0

, 15 45 (2 01 6) (h ol di ng th at “ th e in jury-in -fac t req ui rem en t req ui res a pl ai nt iff to al le ge an in

ju r y t h a t is bo th ‘con cret e an d pa rti cu la riz ed ’” (ci ta ti on

om it te d) ). To pa rap hr as e th e Su pr em e Co ur t, “ al th ou gh a su i t o r may de riv e gr eat

co m fo rt an d joy fro m th e fact th at th e [Pat en t an d Trad em ark Offi ce] is no t ch eat ed

, th at a wro ng do er ge ts hi s jus t de se rts

, or th at th e Nati on ’s la ws are fai th fu ll y

en fo rced

, th at ps y ch ic sa ti sf act io n is no t an acce pt ab le Arti cl e III rem ed y be cau se it

do es n o t red res s a co gn iz ab le Arti cl e III in jury.” St eel Co

. v. Ci ti zen s fo r a Bet te r

Env ’t, 52 3 U.S. 83

, 10 7 (1 99 8) ; se e al so Sp ok eo , 13 6 S. Ct

. at 15 49 (“ Co ng res s’ ro le

in id en ti fy in g an d el ev at in g in ta ng ib le ha rm s do es no t m ean th at a pl ai nt iff

au to m at ic al ly sa ti sf

ie s th e in jury-i n

- f act req ui rem en t whe ne ve r a st at ut e gr an ts a

pe rs on a st at ut or y rig ht an d pu rp or ts to au th or iz e th at pe rs on to su e to vi nd ic at e th at

r i g h t

. ” ) ; Alre ad y , 13 3 S. Ct

. at 73 1 (rejec ti ng th e no ti on th at co m pe ti to rs ha v e

st an di ng to se ek th e can cel la ti on of a reg is tra ti on si m pl y be cau se it was u nl awfu ll y

ob ta in ed ).

Apa rt fro m th is ge ne ral iz ed gr ie va nc e, whi ch is in su ffi ci en t to crea te st an di ng , th e reco rd do es no t s h o w th at EIP su ffer ed an y in jury fro m PI’s fal se or frau du le nt

tra de m ark reg is tra ti on s. A pa rti cu la riz ed in jury m ig ht res ul t, fo r ex am pl e, if EIP ha d

tri ed to ap pl y fo r it s own fed eral reg is tra ti on fo r th e PAKSTER tra de m ark

, an d be en

im pe de d by PI’s pr eex is ti ng reg is tra ti on s. Cf. St ar-Ki st Fo od s, In c. v. P.J. Rh od es &

Co

., 73 5 F.2 d 34 6, 34 9– 5 0 (9 th Ci r. 19 84 ). Bu t Bret Kiv el l, th e co -o wne r of EIP,

-8

-te st ifi ed th at EIP ha d ne ve r ap pl ie d fo r a tra de m a r k reg is tra ti on be cau se he fel t it

was n’t n eces sa ry , so EIP co ul d n ot ha ve su ffer ed an y in jury of th is so rt.

Ano th er co nc ei va bl e fo rm of no n- m on et ary in jury is da m ag e to th e g oo dwi ll

as so ci at ed wit h EIP’s tra de m ark , f or we ha ve reco gn iz ed th at lo ss of go od wil l m ay

no t be eas il y qu an ti fia bl e. See Med ic in e Sh op pe In t’l, In c. v. S.B.S. Pi ll Dr., In c., 33 6

F.3 d 80 1, 80 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). Bu t he re th e di st ric t co ur t m ad e no f i nd in g th at EIP

su ffer ed an y lo ss of go od wil l, ev en a lo ss in su sc ep ti bl e of ex act cal cu la ti on , an d EIP

po in ts to no ev id en ce i n t he tri al reco rd th at it di d.

EIP al so su gg es ts th at st an d in g m ay be fo un d ba se d on it s be in g fo rced to

li ti ga te th is su it

. Bu t to gi ve ris e to st an di ng , an in jury m us t be “ fai rly tra ceab le to th e

de fen da nt ’s al le ge dl y un la wfu l co nd uc t.” All en v. W rig ht

, 46 8 U.S. 73 7, 75 1 (1 98 4)

. To th e ex te nt EIP’s arg um en t is ba se d on ha vi ng to de fen d ag ai ns t PI’s co un te rcl ai m s,

th ere is no in di cat io n th at an y su ch in jury st em s fro m th e al le ge dl y un la wfu l act io n:

PI ob ta in in g tra de m ark reg is tra ti on s by m ak in g a fal se or frau du le nt de cl arat io n to th e

PTO. Tha t’s be cau se th e Lan ha m Act pr ot ec t s bo th reg is te red an d un reg is te red

tra de m ark s, see Two Pes os , In c. v. Taco Cab an a, In c., 50 5 U.S. 76 3, 76 8 (19 92 ), so

“ ev en wit ho ut it s reg is tra ti on s, [PI] st il l w o u l d h av e ha d a su bs ta nt ia ll y si m il ar

Lan ha m Act cau se of act io n,” Gil be rt/ Ro bi ns on , Inc . v. Carri e Bev erag e-M is so ur i,

In c., 98 9 F.2 d 98 5, 99 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ), ab ro ga te d on ot he r gr ou nd s by Lex m ark In t’l,

In c. v

. S t a t i c Co nt ro l Co m po ne nt s, In c., 13 4 S. Ct

. 13 77 (2 01 4)

. It’s tru e th at PI

br o u gh t co un te rcl ai m s un de r bo th se ct io ns 32 an d 43 (a), an d th e fo rm er se ct io n

al lo ws su it on ly by own ers of reg is te red tra de m ark s. See 15 U.S.C. § 11 14 ; Two

Pes os , 50 5 U.S. at 76 8. Bu t th ere is no in di cat io n th at EIP su ffer ed ad di ti on al in jury

fro m be in g fo rced to de fen d ag ai ns t bo th cl ai m s, as co m pa red to de fen di ng on ly

ag ai ns t th e la tt er. In ot he r w o r d s , EIP wou ld ha ve face d an es se nt ia ll y id en ti cal 4

To th e ex te nt EIP’s arg um en t is th at it ha s st an di ng ba se d on ha vi ng to li ti ga te 4

th e su it it it se lf ch os e to br in g, we do no t th in k it can ge ne rat e it s own Arti cl e III

-9

-co un te rcl ai m ev en if PI ha d ne ve r ob ta in ed a tra de m ark reg is tra ti on by frau d, so an y

in jury bas ed on li ti ga ti ng co un te rcl ai m s i s n ot “ fai rly trace ab le ” to th at frau d.

Mo reo ve r, th e no ti on th at be in g fo rced to li ti ga te th e su it is in jury en ou gh fo r

EIP to ha ve st an di ng to pu rs ue can cel la ti on of PI’s tra de m ark reg is tra ti on s is di ffi cu lt

to sq ua r e w i t h th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s de ci si on in Alre ad y

. In th at cas e, Nik e fil ed a

tra de m ark i n f

r in ge m en t cas e ag ai ns t a co m pa ny cal le d Alre ad y , whi ch fil ed a

co un te rcl ai m se ek in g to can cel Nik e’s tra de m ark

. See 13 3 S. Ct

. at 72 5. Nik e th en

is su ed a co ve na nt no t to su e Alre ad y fo r tra de m ark in fri ng em en t o r un fai r co m pe ti

ti on ba se d on it s ex is ti ng fo ot wear de si gn s or fu t u r e de si gn s th at co ns ti tu te d a

“ co lo rab le im it at io n” of it s cu rren t de si gn s, an d m ov ed to di sm is s bo th it s cl ai m s an d

Alre ad y ’s co un te rcl ai m wit h pr ejud ic e. See id

. The Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at Nik e’s

a c t i o n s de pr iv ed Alre ad y of st an di ng to pu rs ue it s tra de m ark can cel la ti on co un te rcl ai m

. See id . a t 72 9. If EIP were rig ht th at st an di ng to se ek can cel la ti on co ul d be

ba se d on ha ving be en fo rced to de fen d ag ai ns t an in fri ng em en t su it

, ho wev er, Alre ad y

wou ld pre su m ab ly hav e h ad st an di ng

.

W e are th us fo rced to co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t la ck e d ju r i s d i ct io n to

can cel th e fed eral reg is tra ti on s of PI’s tra de m ark s, an d va cat e th e can cel la ti on

. Hav in g ob ta in ed no da m ag es , i nju nc ti on , o r can cel l a t i o n f r om it s se ct io n 38 cl ai m , th ere is no ba si s fo r co nc lu di ng th at EIP was th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty on th at cl ai m , whi ch

EIP ag rees is a pr eco nd it io n t o r ecei vi ng at to rn ey ’s fees

. As a res ul t, we ne ed no t

reac h P I’s arg um en t t ha t at to rn ey ’s fees are n ot av ai la bl e u nd er s ect io n 3 8.

in jury in th is fas hi on

. “ An in te res t in a t t o r ne y ’s fees is in su ffi ci en t to crea te an Arti cl e III cas e or co nt ro ve rs y whe re n o n e ex is ts on th e m eri ts of th e un de rlyin g cl ai m ,” St eel Co

., 52 3 U.S. at 10 7 (qu ot at io ns an d alt erat io n om it te d)

, an d th e sa m e is tru e of an in te res t in se ek in g th e can cel la ti on of a tra de m ark . Oth erwi se , a nyon e

wou ld be ab le to es ta bl is h st an di ng t o c a n c e l a tra de m ark ba se d si m pl y on th ei r br in gi ng su it to can cel th e tr ad em ark

.

-1 0-B

EIP al so arg ue s t h a t it pr ev ai le d wit h res pe ct to PI’s in fri ng em en t an d un fai r

co m pe ti ti on co un te rcl ai m s un de r se ct io ns 32 an d 43 (a) of th e Lan ha m Act, 15 U.S.C.

§§ 11 14

, 11 25 (a), be cau se it su ccee de d in ha v i n g th em di sm is se d wit h pr ejud ic e

be fo re th e tri al

. W he th er a pa rty is a “ pr ev ai li ng pa rty” is a qu es ti on of la w th at we

rev ie w de no vo

. Doc Mag ic

, In c. v. M or tg ag e P’sh ip of Am ., L.L .C., 72 9 F.3d 80 8,

81 2 (8 th Cir . 20 13 ). 5

Att or ne y ’s fees co ul d in pr in ci pl e be a v a i la bl e fo r su cces sf ul ly de fen di ng

ag ai ns t in fri ng em en t an d un fai r co m pe ti ti on co un te rcl ai m s ba se d on se ct io n 35 of th e

Lan ha m Act, whi ch pr ov id es th at a “ co ur t in ex cep ti on al cas es m ay award reas on ab le

at to rn ey fees to th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty” whe n th e r e i s “ a vi ol at io n of an y rig ht of th e

EIP co nt en ds th at th e de te rm in at io n of th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty m us t be rev ie wed 5

fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n fol lo win g t he Su pr em e Co ur t’s deci si on in Hig hm ark In c. v. All care Heal th Mg m

t. Sy s., In c., whi ch he ld th at “ an ap pe ll at e co ur t sh ou ld ap pl y an ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd in rev ie win g al l as pe ct s of ” a di st ric t co ur t’s at to rn ey ’s
fees de te rm in at io n un de r 35 U.S.C. § 28 5, th e st at ut or y pr ov is io n au t h o r i z in g fee
sh ift in g in pa te nt cas es

. 13 4 S

. C t

. 1 7 44

, 17 49 (2 01 4) (em ph as is ad de d)

. Bu t Hig hm ark co nc ern ed o n l y t h e st an da rd of rev ie w th at ap pl ie d to a di st ric t co ur t’s
de te rm in at io n th at a cas e was “ ex cep ti on al ,” no t th e de te rm in at io n of whi ch pa rty was th e “ pr ev ai li ng pa rty,” an d whe n read in co nt ex t th e qu ot ed la ng ua ge th eref or e refe rs

on ly to th e fo rm er de te rm in at io n. S e e id

. at 17 48 ; se e al so Ill in oi s v. Lid st er, 54 0

U.S. 41 9, 42 4 (2 00 4) (n ot in g th at “ ge ne ral la ng ua ge in jud ic ia l op in io ns ” is of te n read

“ as refe rri ng in co nt ex t to ci rcu m st an ces si m il ar to th e ci rcu m st an ces th en be fo re th e Co ur t an d n ot refe rri ng to qu it e d iff eren t ci rcu m st an ces th at th e Co ur t was no t t he n

co ns id eri ng ”); Co he ns v. Virg in ia

, 19 U.S. (6 W he at .) 26 4, 39 9 (1 82 1) (Ma rs ha ll

, C.J .) (“ [G]enera l ex pr es si on s, in ev ery op in io n, are to be ta ke n in co nn ect io n wit h th e

cas e in whi ch th os e ex pr es si on s are us ed .”). W e no te th at th e Fed eral Ci rcu it

, who se de ci si on was u nd er re vi ew in Hig hm ark , has co nt in ue d s in ce t ha t cas e to rev ie w de

no v o a d i s tri ct co ur t’s de te rm in at io n of whe th er a pa rty was th e “ pr ev ai li ng pa rty”

un de r 35 U.S.C. § 28 5. See SSL Serv s., LL C v

. C i t r i x Sy s., In c., 76 9 F.3 d 10 73

, 10 86 (Fed . Cir . 20 14 ).

-1 1-reg is tra nt of a m ark reg is te red in th e Pat en t an d Trad em ark Offi c e [o r] a vi ol at io n

un de r se ct io n [4 3( a)].” 15 U.S.C. § 11 17 (a). EIP’s su cces s wit h res pe ct to th es e

co un te rcl ai m s is no t su ffi ci en t to m ak e it th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty, h owe ve r, be cau se PI

co ul d wit h eq ua l jus ti ce cl ai m t o b e th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty ba se d on it s win ni ng jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w on EIP’s in fri ng e men t, fal se st at em en t, an d un fai r

co m pe ti ti on cl ai m s. Each pa rty br ou gh t vi rtu al ly id en ti cal cl ai m s wit h res pe ct to th e

sa m e tra de m ark , and ne it he r was su cces sf ul . The Su pr em e Co ur t “ ha s sa id th at th e

‘tou ch st on e of th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty in qu iry m us t be th e m at eri al al te rat io n of th e le ga l

rel at io ns hi p of th e pa rti es ,’ ” an d th ere is no su ch al te rat io n whe re, as he re, th e di st ric t

co ur t es se nt ia ll y res to red th e st at us qu o an te

. CRST Van Exp ed it ed

, In c. v. E.E.O. C.,

13 6 S . Ct. 1 64 2, 16 46 (2 01 6) (q uo ti ng Tex . S ta te Trach ers Ass ’n v. Garl an d In de p.

Sch

. Dis t., 48 9 U.S. 78 2, 79 2– 93 (1 98 9) ). W he re th e pa rti es ach ie ve a de ad he at

, we

do n’t see ho w ei th er can be de cl ared th e “ pr ev ai li ng pa rty.” See Krop p v. Zieb art h,

60 1 F.2 d 13 48

, 13 58 n.2 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 79 ) (p er cu ria m ) ( “[W]h e n a de fen da nt

co un te rcl ai m s fo r affi rm at iv e rel ie f an d ne it he r pa rty pr ev ai ls on it s cl ai m , it is qu it e

ap pr op ria te to de ny co st s to bo th pa rti es .”); cf. S. W in e & Sp iri ts of Nev

. v. Mo un ta in

Vall ey Sp rin g C o., 71 2 F.3d 39 7, 4 00 –0 1 (8 th Cir . 20 13 ) (al lo win g d is tri ct co ur t t o

fin d n o pre va il in g par ty und er Nev ad a la w). But see Sh um v. In te l Co rp ., 62 9 F .3d

13 60

, 13 67 (Fed

. Ci r. 20 10 ) (h ol di ng th at “ [a] co ur t m us t ch oo se on e, an d on ly on e, ‘prev ai li ng pa rty’ to rece iv e an y co st s award ” un de r Ru le 54 (d ) of th e Fed eral Ru le s

of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e). Bec au se EIP was no t th e “ pr ev ai li ng pa rty” wit h res pe ct to PI’s

tra de m ark in fri ng em en t an d un fai r co m pe ti ti on co un te rcl ai m s, it i s n o t en ti tl ed to

at to rn ey ’s fees un de r se ct io n 3 5 o f th e Lan ha m Act.

C

Fi na ll y , EIP arg ue s th at it sh ou ld ob ta in at to rn ey ’s fees be cau se it su cces sf ul ly

o b t ai ne d a de cl arat io n th at it own ed th e PAKSTER tra de m ark

. W e feel we m us t

rem an d th e cas e fo r fu rth er con si de rat io n of thi s is su e by th e di st ric t co ur t. Tho ug h

th e d is tri ct co ur t st at ed th at EIP was th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty “ be cau se it es ta bl is he d it s

-1 2-own ers hi p of th e Trad em ark ,” it s fin di ng s reg ard in g own ers hi p le av e so m e qu es ti on s

un an swe red

. The st at em en ts in it s fin di ng s of fact an d co nc lu si on s of l a w th at th e

sa le of th e m ol ds “ tra ns ferr ed to [PI] th e rig ht to us e [th e tra de m ark ] o n l y in

c o nn ect io n wit h th e m ol ds ,” an d th at “ [EIP] own s th e Trad em ark fo r us e i n

m an uf act ur in g a nd sel li ng pro du ct s i n t he eg g a nd po ul try bu si ne ss , su bjec t o nl y to
[PI’s] li cen se to us e th e Trad em ark to m an uf act ur e an d se ll e gg fla ts m ad e by th e

in jecti on m ol di ng m et ho d,” su gg es t th at EIP own ed th e tra de m ark su bjec t to a li cen se

to PI. Bu t th e di st ric t co ur t’s op in io n al so st at es th at “ [t]he sa le s by Ken Tech of th e

Trad em ark to bo th [EIP] an d [PI] le ft t h e Tr ad em ark joi nt ly own ed

, whi ch th e la w

di sc ou rag es bu t acce pt s if, as he re, th e pa rti es ch oo se th is arra ng em en t,” su gg es ti ng

th at bo th EIP an d P I were jo in t o wne rs

.

Als o u nc le ar is th e sc op e of th e li cen se to PI, as su m in g th e co ur t fo un d P I to

be a li cen se e rat he r th an a joi nt own er. The di st ric t co ur t refe rred to PI’s “ li cen se to

us e th e Trad em ark to m an uf act ur e an d se ll eg

g fl at s m ad e b y

th e in jecti on m ol di ng

m et ho d,” bu t as no te d ab ov e, th e li cen se ba ck fo un d in th e APA ex te nd ed no t jus t to

eg g fla ts

, bu t to “ th e pr od uc ti on an d sa le of in jecti on m ol de d p l a s t i c pr od uc ts ” in

ge ne ral

. No ba si s fo r th e li m it at io n to eg g fla ts ap pe ars in th e op in io n, an d we th in k

it po ss ib le th e co ur t men t i on ed eg g fla ts on ly be cau se it was th e so le pr od uc t

m an uf act ur ed by bo th EI P a n d P I

. W he th er at to rn ey ’s fees are av ai la bl e fo r EIP’s

de cl arat or y jud gm en t cl ai m m ay de pe nd on ho w th es e am bi gu it ie s are res ol ve d, an d

a s t h e am bi gu it ie s are fact ua l in na tu re, th e di st ric t co ur t is be st pl aced to res ol v e

th em

.

Rem an d is es pe ci al ly ap pr op ria te be cau se th e own ers hi p of th e PAKSTER

tra de m ark tu rn s on st at e co nt ract la w, no t fed eral la w. See In t’l Arm or & Lim ou si ne

Co

. v

. M o l o n ey Co ach bu il de rs , In c., 27 2 F.3 d 91 2, 91 7 (7 th Ci r. 20 01 ); Gib ral ta r,
P.R., In c. v. Oto ki Gro up , In c., 10 4 F.3 d 61 6, 61 8– 19 (4 th Ci r. 19 97 ); Po st al In st an t

Pres s v. Cl ark

, 74 1 F.2 d 25 6, 25 7 (9 th Ci r. 19 84 ); cf. T.B. Harm s Co

. v. Eli sc u, 33 9

F.2 d 82 3, 82 6 (2 d Ci r. 19 64 ) ( F r i en dl y , J.) (“ [T]he fed eral gr an t of a pa te nt or

-1 3-co pyrig ht ha s no t be en th ou gh t to in fu se wit h an y na ti on al in te re s t a di sp ut e as to

own ers hi p or co nt ract ua l enfo rcem en t tu rn in g on th e fact s or on or di na ry pr in ci pl es

of co nt ract l a w

. ” )

. I n a st at e la w di sp ut e, st at e la w go ve rn s th e av ai la bi li ty of

at to rn ey ’s fees whe re no co nf li ct in g fed eral st at ut e or co ur t ru le ap pl ie s. See

Fu tu reFu el Ch em

. Co

. v. Lon za, In c., 75 6 F.3 d 64 1, 64 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). On ap pe al

, th e pa rti es ha ve no t br ie fed th e av ai la bi li ty of at to rn ey ’s fees un de r th e rel ev an t st at e

la w (o r ev en whi ch st at e’s la w go ve rn s)

, so we be li ev e it wou ld be pr ud en t fo r th e

di st ric t co ur t to ad dr es s th e is su e in th e fir st in st an ce aft er so li ci ti ng br ie fin g fro m th e

pa rti es

.

III

Our co nc lu si on s sh ou ld no t be read as co nd on in g PI’s kn owi ng m is rep res en ta

ti on s t o t he Pat en t an d Tra de m ark Offic e. Bu t o n t he fact s i n th is cas e, be cau se th e

di st ri c t co ur t la ck ed juri sd ic ti on to can cel PI’s tra de m ark reg is tra ti on s, EIP di d no t

pr ev ai l on an y cl ai m th at en ti tl ed it to at to rn ey ’s fees

. W e no te th at EIP m ay be ab le

to se ek can cel la ti on of PI’s tra de m ark reg is tra ti on s by fil in g a pe ti ti on wit h th e PTO.

See 1 5 U.S.C. § 10 64

.

We va cat e th e di st ric t co ur t’s can cel la ti on of PI’s tra de m ark reg is tra ti on s ,

rev ers e th e di st ric t co ur t ’s g r a n t o f at to rn ey ’s fees to EIP, an d rem an d fo r fu rth er

pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 4-