FOURTH DIVISION August 7, 2008

No. 1-07- 0679
CHICAGO’S PIZZA, I NC., CHICAGO’S ) A ppe al f rom the Ci rcuit Court of BEST, INC ., an d FL

OVIG, I NC., ) Co o k C o un t y, I llino is

) Plai ntif fs-Appel lan ts, )

) v. ) No. 03 CH 2044 ) CHICAGO’ S PIZZA F

RANCHISE LIMITED ) USA, f /k/a Pizz a USA, Inc., and ) Honorab l e Ba rba ra Disko, IRFANU LLA H MUHAM

MED, ) Judge Presidin g. ) Defendan ts-Appellees. )

JU STI CE MU RPHY de l iv ered th e op in i on

of th e c our t: Plaint iff s, C hicago ’s P izza, Inc ., Chicag o’ s Bes t , I nc. , a nd Flo vig, I nc. , filed a c omp laint agai nst def endan ts, Chi cago’s Pi zza Fran

chi se Li mi ted and Irfan

ull ah Muh am med, all egi ng that defendan ts used t he Chi

cago’s Pizza nam

e to mislead consum

ers, benefi

t from plai

ntif fs’ in v es tm en t in th e C h i ca

go’ s Pi zz a nam

e, an d d iv er t sa l esf rom pl ai n tif f s’ re sta ur an ts to de f en da nts ’. A f ter a be nc h tr i al , th e tri al court f ound th at p l ai

nti f f s d i d not m eet the i r b urden of provin g that defenda

nts’ acti ons caused pl

ai ntif fs to lose revenue. I. BACKG

ROUND Martin Fl ores and hi s wi

fe opened their f

irst Ch ic ago’s Piz za restaurant in 1991. By 2002, th ey h ad th re e C h i ca go’ s Pi zz a l

oca ti on s i n Ch i ca go: 31 14Nor

th Li n col n A v en ue , 30 06Nor

thNo. 1-07- 0679

-2-

Shef fi eld, and 1919 We st Montro se. From 2002 un til 2006, Muham

med ran an un

aff il ia ted Chi cago’s Pi zza pizzeri a, with i ts sole l ocation at 5062 Nort h Sheri dan Road. Al

though Muham med had onl

y one store, hi s ads l

is ted mul tipl e “l ocations,” some of

whi ch corresponded with pl ai ntif fs ’ l ocations. The ads al

so described worldwi

de l ocations and cl

ai med that defen dants’ restaurant had been i n ex is tence si nce 1970, even though Muh am med did n ot open the re staura

nt un til 2002. Cer t ain of p laintiffs’ res t aur ant s we re called C hicago ’s P izza, while ot her s we nt by Chi cago’s Pi zza & Pasta. Pl ai ntif fs ’ l ogo was a red o val

with the w ord “Chi

cago’s” wri

tt en in side, with ei

ther “Pi zza” and “

Pizz a & Pasta” under the oval . Defen dants’ l ogo was a red, whi te, and bl ue pi zza wi

th “Ch ic ago’s Piz za” wri

tt en i n the b ot to m, blue

port ion a nd “Pizz eria” written i n green i n the m iddl e. Plai ntif fs fi led a 10-count compla

in t all egi ng that defen

dants used the Ch

ic ago’s Piz za
nam e i n an eff ort to misl

ead the publ

ic in to thin kin g that it was a f

ranchi sed bus in ess af fi li ated with pl ai ntif fs . Plai ntif f Ch ic ago’s Piz za, Inc., the Li ncol n A ven ue l ocation, all

eged tort ious in terference wi

th busi ness expectancy

and v iolations of

the Uni form Deceptiv e Trade Practices Act (Deceptive Trade Practices A ct) (815 ILCS 510/1 et seq. (West 2004)) and the Consum er Fraud and Deceptive Busi ness Practices A

ct (Consumer F

raud Act) (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2004)). Chicago’s Best, the Montrose Avenue locati on, and Fl

ovig, the Sh

eff ie ld A ven ue location, all

eged viol ations of the Decept iv e Trade P ractices Act against both defendants. In 2006, the case proceeded to t rial, where the f oll owing e vi dence was

presented. A. Martin

and Patrici

a Fl oresNo. 1-07- 0679

-3-

Mar t in Flore s t est ifi

ed t hat he o wns fo ur loca t ions o f Chicago ’s P izza: No rt h Linco ln, North Sh ef f i el d, West Mon

trose, an d West Irv

ing P ark. A

t the ti m e of tria l , the Irv ing P ark l ocati on h ad j ust b een

opened, an

d hi s W est W il son store relocated to Mon trose two yearsbe f

ore. The Li ncol n store opened in

2001. Chi cago’s Pi zza was i

ncorporat ed i

n 1992 an d started as a two -person operat ion. Sal es in creased every y

ear, and at the tim

e of the trial , the busi

ness had 160 em

ploy ees. However, at t he en d o f 20 02 o r20 03 , Flo r es sa w a de cr ea se in sa les , es pe cia lly in t he Wr igle y Fie ld a r ea . Un t il that t im e, ot her compe

titors o pened i

n the area, but they

did n ot aff ect hi s busi

ness . He bel

ie ved that t he decreas e i

n bus in ess was a result of the openi ng of a C hi cago’s Pi zza on Sheri

dan Road, wh i ch wasnot af

f il i ated wi th h i s restauran

ts. He recei

ve d hu ndr eds of c omp l ai

nts f rom c ustom ers about the quali

ty of the Sh

eridan restaurant’s food. Furtherm ore, in Fe bruary and March

2006, people bega

n com pla in in g that plai ntif f was frau dulent ly charging t heir cr edit car ds; ho weve r, plaint iff s did no t char ge t heir cr edit car ds, and t he alle ge d c us t o mer s w er e n o t in p laint iffs’ co mpu t er sys t em. Plai nti f f s’ tax rec ords sh owe d th at g ros s s al

es f or th e L inc ol n l oca ti on w as $1. 9 m

ill i on f or t he 20 00 t ax year ; $2 .3 mil lion for 200 1; $ 2, 078 ,7 65 fo r 2 002 ; $1 .8 mil lion for 200 3; and $2 , 29 6, 00 0 fo r20 04
. Du r ing t he t ime fr ame wh en he no t ice d a de cr ea se in sa les , he inc r ea se d h is advertisin g to recover so me of the customers he had l ost . Sales i

ncreased when def

endants’ restau ran t cl osed i n 20 06. In 20 00 , F l ore s ch an

ge d th e nam e of th e res tau

ra n t on h i s m en us an d th e I n ter n et to Chicag o’ s Pizz a & P ast a. When he o pene d his first full-ser vice re st aur ant in Lincoln in 200 1, t heNo. 1-07- 0679

-4-

name o n t he sign w as Chica go ’s P izza & P ast a. The signs at t he Wilson a nd S heffield loca t ions h av e a lwa y s been Ch i ca go’ s Pi zz a, an

d th e s i gn on Mon tros e w asCh

i ca go’ s P i zz a & Pa sta be gi nn ing i n 20 03. Pat ricia Flo re s, M ar t in’s niece, t est ifi ed t hat unt il the year befo re , she wo rk ed a t t he Chi cago’s Pi zza location on Montrose. At o ne poi nt, a customer presented a coupon for what pu r po r t ed t o be Ch ica go ’s Piz za , wh ich list ed o ne ph o ne nu mbe rfo r“d o wn t o wn ar ea , Linc o ln area” and “Li

ncoln Park, Sheff

iel d area” and anot her num

ber for “Wi

lson area, Montr ose l oca ti on” an d “Rog ers Par k, S he rida n a rea .” P atri

cia te sti f i ed tha t this c oupon

wa s n ot f or pla in tif fs ’ Chi cago Pizza. A

fter recei vi ng addi tional compl ai nts, she cal

led the phone n

umb er that t he cu st omer gave her for a Chica go ’s P izza lo cat ed o n Sher idan. Pat ricia as ked t he pe rso n who answered the ph

one whether the restaurant was af fi li ated with the Ch

ic ago’s Piz za on Montrose, and he sai d yes. Patrici a testif

ied that when the Montrose store was opened in 2002, the sign

pla ced
ou t side sa id Chicag o’ s Pizz a & P ast a, as d id t he menus . H ow ever , t hey always ans wer ed t he phon e “ Ch i cago Pi zza .” B. Defen dant Irfan ull ah Muh am med Irfan ull ah Muh am med testifi

ed that he bought the goodwil l of an ex is ting pi zzeri a nam

ed Pai sa n’ s Pi zz a f

or $8 7,0 00 a

nd chan ge d the n am

e. He di d not ex am

ine the books a nd rec ords f or t he bus iness befo re pur chas ing it, and his o nly experienc e wit h t he pizz a bus iness wa s o bser ving hi s f ri en d’s pizza bus ine ss i

n J apan f or three or four m

onths
. At t he t ime he inc o r po r at ed his b us ine ss in 2 00 2, Mu ha mmed t o ld t he St at e t ha t he wo uldNo. 1-07- 0679

1 Two other m

en us i nc l uded in th e rec ord do not l

i st the m ul tip l e “ l ocati ons.” -5- be doi ng bus in ess under the nam

e Chi cago Pizza In

n U.S.A. However, he n

ever opened a bu sine ss na med Ch ica go Piz za I nn U
. S. A. Whe n he o pe ne d h is bu sine ss un de rt he na me Chi cago’s Pi zza, he di

d not look in the ph

one book to determi

ne wh ether any ot her bus in

esses
we re al re ad y us in g that nam

e. Fo r a sh ort ti m e i n 20 04th e b

us in es s w asdi ss ol

v ed f or f ai l ure to pay the fran chi se f ee, but he contin

ued to r un i

t. When h

e rein corpo rated in 2004, h

e learned that he could not use the nam

e Piz za U.S.A. and i

nstead tried to use the nam e Chi cago Pizza &

Pasta. He ul tim ately cl osed the busi

ness in February or March 2006. Defe ndan ts’ ads had ei

ther a “ci rcle R ” nex t t o “Chi cago’s Pi zza,” as i

f i t were registered, or th e “ TM” de si gn ati on. Muha

m m ed ne ve r ob tai ned a reg i stra ti on;he ab an doned hi s a ppl i ca ti on wi th the Un ited State Pa

tent an d Trade mark Of f i ce. Alt ho ug h d efe nd an t s o nly ha d o ne lo ca t io n, o n S he r ida n R o ad , t he ir a ds inc lud ed mult iple “loca t ions, ” wit h different pho ne number s for eac h. Fo r e xample, defend ant s’ pho ne bo ok ad a nd one of thei

r men us 1 sho wed loca t ions fo r Linco ln/She ffi eld, Do wnt ow n/Lo op , Mo nt ro se/ Wilson, and L ake fro nt /S her idan/L oyo la, a nd ur ged cus t omer s t o “c all for yo ur near est loca t ion. ” I n a Yel low Book coupo n, def

endan ts li sted one phone num

ber f or “Downtown Area, Li

ncol n A rea, Li nc oln Park, Sh ef f i el d A rea” an d a s econd nu

m be r f or “W il son A rea, M ontrose L

ocati on, Roge

rs Park, Sheridan

Area.” An

ot her ad ha

d si x phone num bers f or dif feren t areas that were not la

bel ed “loca t ions” : Linco ln Par k, Sheffield ar ea, Mo nt ro se/ Wilson, D ow nt ow n, U IC & Lo op , a nd Sher idan & Lo yola. Muha mmed t est ifi ed t hat his ads ha d differe nt pho ne number s for different

“ l oca ti on s”to av

oi d ov er wh el m in g on e p h on e l in e a n d s o th at th

e or de r c oul d b e a ss i gn

ed toNo. 1-07- 0679

-6-

dri ve rs who de l

ive red in p arti cu l ar a rea s. He d en

i ed tha t he wa s try ing to cre ate the im pre ss i on that his restaur ant had mul tiple l ocat ions. Se ve r al o f de fen da nt s’ ad s o rmen us list ed wo r ldw ide lo ca t io ns, inc lud ing Du ba i, Fra nkfur t , R ome, and N ew Y or k. Muha mmed admit t ed t hat t hese loca t ions d id no t exist , bu t he
wa nt ed t o o pe n fr an ch ise s in N ew Yo r k a nd T o kyo
. His fr ien d w as go ing t o o pe n a lo ca t io n in San Fra nc i sco an d hi s b rother wa s goi

ng to open

one i n W ash ington , D.C. Ce rtai n a ds or m en us al so m ad e re f ere nc e to “ Esta bl i sh ed 197 0” an d “ Si nc e 1 970 ” or pr ovid ed, “Thank s t o a ll Wonder ful Cust omer s for t heir Co nt inued S upp or t t ow ar ds t he Pr o sp er it y o f Ch ica go ’s Piz za Sin ce 19 70
. ” A s M uh amme d d id n o t o pe n t he r es t au r an t un t il 200 2, t he r est aur ant was not est ablished in 19 70. He t est ifi ed t hat t he year 197 0 r efer s t o w hen a restau ran t cal l ed Straw be rry Pi zza , l ocated i

n J apan , be gan

usi ng a parti cul ar cru st reci

pe. Certain ads al so stat e that defen

dants’ restaurant i s open unti l 5 a .m. Muham

med testifi

ed that t he restaurant’s cl

osin g tim e was 5 a.m . but was chan ged to 3 a. m. Duri

ng the tim

e when a 5
a.m . cl osi ng ti m e was adverti sed , som

etim es h e cl osed e arl i er. Muham med testifi

ed that he fi

rst learned of pl ai

ntif fs ’ restaurants af

ter t hi s l awsui

t was fil ed. In r esp ons e, he pu t up a sign visible to bot h t he pu blic and t he emplo yees t hat answ er ed t he phon e sa ying that the re staura

nt wa s not aff

il i ated wi th an y other l ocati ons or c omp an

i es. Emplo yees ans wer ed t he pho ne “Chicag o’ s Pizz a She rida n,” and he instr uct ed t hem tha t if any
cus tomer s asked a

bout Ch i cago’ s Pi zza & Pa sta, “

tell them to cal l di f f eren t num be rs.” Muha m m ed tes ti f i ed tha t plai nti f f s’ an d de f en da nts ’ r es tauran ts c arr y di f f ere nt i tem s. F or
ex am pl e, M uh am m ed tes ti f i ed tha t his p i zz eri

a di d not ca

rry 40% of the ap pe ti ze rs l i ste d onNo. 1-07- 0679

-7-

pla in tif fs ’ m enu, and h

e di d not sell

any of pl ai ntif fs ’ sal ads, chi cken di shes , wraps, or go urmet
sa ndw iche s. Th ey so ld d iffer ent de ss er t s, and de fend ant s c ar rie d P ep si p ro du ct s, while pla int iffs carried C oke pro ducts. In addition, halal food, whi ch pl

ai ntif fs do not sel

l, consti tut ed 20 to 30% of def en dan ts’ gr oss s al es. Muham med testifi

ed that after this l

iti gation en ds, he pl ans to reopen hi s busi

ness under the nam e “ Ch i cago’ s Pi zza .” C. Cu stom ers 1. Wolf St ern Wo lf St er n t es t ified t ha t he o r de r ed piz za s a bo ut o nc e a mo nt h fr o m pla int iffs’ Linc o ln Avenue l ocation. In Decem

ber 2003, he deci

ded to o rder a pizza

and l ooked in the Yel

low Pages for t he Chicago’s Pizza o n Lin coln Avenue. When he could not fi nd it, he called the Chicago’s Pi zz a on Sheri da n a nd as ke d f or th e p hon

e n um be r of the Li nc ol n A ve nue l oca ti on. Th e p ers on St er n spo ke t o a ske d him for his a ddr ess a nd sa id t hey co uld d eliver fro m the S her idan loc at ion,
so St er n place d an o rd er . S t er n’s und er st anding w as t hat he wa s o rd er ing fro m an affil iate of t he Chi cago’s Pi zza on Li

ncol n. Wh en the pi zza did not arrive wi

thin the agreed-upon period of ti me , St er n called t he loc at ion t wo or t hre e t imes and w as t old t hat t he dr iver w as r ight ar ou nd t he corner. He had to wait alm ost t wo hours for the deli very to arrive, and the pi

zza he bought was

“ ter ri b l e. ” S ter

n ca ll ed th e s tore ag ai n to ex pres s h i s d i ss ati sf ac ti on , a n d th e m an h e ta l ke d to offer ed him a disc ou nt on his ne xt or der , w hich wo uld be p laced in the c omp ut er syst em and honored at all

of thei r locations , in

cl udin g Li ncol n A ven ue. In 2004, Stern met Martin Fl ores when F

lores threw a party f

or t hei r sons’ b asebal

l teamNo. 1-07- 0679

-8-

at Chicago’s Pi zza. Fl

ores to ld h

im about issue s he was

hav in g with a nother stor e wi

th a si mi la r
nam e, and Stern expl

ai ned the probl

em he h ad i n Decem ber 2003. In the m

eanti me , Stern had stopped o rderin

g from Chi cago’s Pi zza and h

ad told hi s f

rien ds of h is negative ex

perien ce. Af ter speaki ng to Flores, Stern agai

n began patronizi

ng the Ch ic ago’s Piz za on Li

ncol n A ven ue. 2. Travis Cohen Tr avis Co hen t est ifi

ed t hat for t wo years unt il Februa ry 20 06, he o rd er ed p izza fr om t he Sheffield loc at ion o f Chicago ’s P izza a t least onc e a w eek . I n Febr uar y 2006 , he loo ked in the ph o ne bo o k, wh ich ha d mu lt iple lo ca t io ns f o rCh ica go ’s Piz za . Be ca us e h e k ne w t ha t Sh effie ld turne d i nto Sheri dan , he though t that the S he

ri dan l ocati on wa s the

sam e asthe Sh

ef f i el d locati on. Theref ore, he ordered a pizza f

rom the Sheri

dan l ocation. He testifi

ed that Chicago’s Pi zza char ged his debit car d $2 2. 12 fo r t his or der , bu t ano t her char ge fo r $ 55 a ppe ar ed o n his acco unt two d ay s l

ate r. C oh en ca ll ed th e S h er i da n l oca ti on re ga rd in g th e ex tra charge an d w asad v i se d to call Mar ia, t he ar ea mana ger for Chicag o’ s Pizz a. Co hen ca lled Mar ia at t he number t hat t he pers on at the

She ri dan l ocati on ga

ve hi m an d di scovered that the two l ocati ons w ere n

ot aff il i ated. Co hen filed a po lice rep or t and filed a g rievanc e wit h his bank. Afte r t his incident , he is or der ing pizza s ag ain fro m the S heffield loca t ion. 3. Anthony P oole Antho ny Po ole t est ifi

ed t hat in Febru ar y 2005 , he saw an ad for Chicag o’ s Pizz a and
ca ll ed the nu m be r l i ste d to order a

pi zz a. H e had

orde red f rom the Mon trose an d W il son l oca ti on s of Ch i ca go’ s Pi zz a a

t lea st 1 2 ti

m es . W h en th e p i zz a a

rri v ed , the q ua l ity wa s d i f f eren t, but he assumed there was a ne w person i

n plai ntif fs ’ ki tchen. A f

ew weeks l

ater, he orderedNo. 1-07- 0679

-9-

ano t her pizza by using t he pho ne number fro m the s ame ad . H e as ked t he emplo yee o n t he pho ne whether thi s was the l

ocation on Wi

ls on, and the em

ploy ee responded that it was. W hen the piz za arrived, the packagi

ng an d aroma were di

ff erent from

normal, so he asked the del iv erym an what l oca ti on it ca m e f rom . Th e del iv er yman sa i d th e C h i ca go’ s P i zz a on Sh er i da n . Poo l e tol

d h im to t ake t he pizz a bac k and called t he She rida n loca t ion. He s po ke t o t he sa me per so n as be for e and qu es t io ne d h im o n t he dis cr ep an cy be t we en lo ca t io ns. T he emp lo yee r es po nd ed t ha t he t o ld Poole earl i er tha t they del ive r to the W

il son a rea, n ot that the l

ocati on wa s on W

il son A venue . Af ter t hi s in cident, he i s order in

g pizzas agai

n f rom the Mont rose and Wil son locations. 4. Joseph Bitterman Jo se ph Bit t er man t es t ified t ha t he wa s a cu st o mer o f t he Ch ica go ’s Piz za o n S he ffield beginn ing i n late 2004 . In July 2005, he loo ked in the pho ne boo k and saw an ad for Chicago’s Pizz a, with di

ff erent phone n

umb ers for each

of i ts four locations : Li

ncol n/Shef fi el d, Downtown/Loo p, Montro se/Wi ls on, and Lakef

ront/Sheridan

/Loyol a. The ad l

is ted a to ll

-free
nu mbe rt o ca ll “fo ryo ur ne ar es t lo ca t io n” an d r ep r es en t ed t ha t t he piz ze r ias we r e o pe n u nt il 5 a.m. Bi tt erman cal led the Shef

fi eld locati on bel

ie vi ng he was cal li ng the Ch ic ago’s Piz za he h

ad do ne bus iness wit h on L incoln and Sheffield. The foo d he r ece ived wa s “disgu st ing t o s ay the least ,” but when he called t he st or e at 4 a. m. t o c omp lain, it w as c lose d. The follow ing day, he returned the food to the Chi cago’s Pi zza on Shef

fi el d, from wh

ic h he thought he had ordered, but did n ot bel ie ve the em ploy ees whe n they to ld h im that t hey had n ot ma de the sandwi

ch. He disparaged the st or e to 20 o r 30 p eop le bef or e he learned that he had or dered from a Chicago’s Pizza on S her idan.No. 1-07- 0679

-10- 5. Judith Levine Ju di th L ev ine tes ti f i ed tha t sh e has been

pa tron i zi ng the Wil son an d M ontr ose l oca ti ons of plai nti f f s’ Ch i cago’ s Pi zz a f

or 15 y ea rs . In A pri l 200 5, s he

cl i pped a Ye ll ow B ook c oupon

f or Ch i cago’ s Pi zz a w ith th

ree phone nu m be rs --on e f or “Li nc ol n P ark an d Sh ef f i el d a rea s,”one f or “W il son and M ontro se areas,” an d a third f or “Sheridan an

d Broadway areas .” She bel ie ved that the coupon wa s f or pl ai nti f f s’ res tauran

ts, s inc e i t ha d the s am e n am e a nd the l oca ti ons l i ste d on the cou pon were simi

lar to plain

tiff s’ locat ions, so she att empted to use it at plain tiff s’ Montro se lo ca t io n. Pla int iffs’ Mo nt r o se lo ca t io n info r med he rt ha t t he co up o n w as no t t he irs bu t st ill h on ore d i t. 6. Mary DeArmond Mary DeA rm ond tes tif i ed th at sh

e was ref erred to the Ch i cago’ s Pi zza on Mon trose. In the s um m er of 2005, h er f ri en d se arch

ed i n h i s cell phon e f or the n eare st Ch i cago’ s Pi zza . A
num ber of Ch ic ago’s Piz za locations cam e up, but her f

rien d cal led the locati on on Sheridan be ca us e it wa s t he clo se st t o his h o us e. He rfr ien d p lac ed an o r de r , an d w he n sh e w en t t o pic k it up, she a ske d whe t her t he r est aur ant was affil iate d wit h t he Chica go ’s P izza o n Mo nt ro se. The
em ploy ee sai d that it was. Sin

ce then, sh

e has n ot ordered from the Sheri dan l ocation, but she has ord ered from the Montr ose locat ion several times
. D. Accountant Sam R

em er Sam Re mer, an ac co unt ant , t est ifi ed t hat he wa s re t ained by Mar t in Flore s t o d et er mine whether def

endan ts’ actions dam

aged pl ai ntif fs ’ bus in ess an d the am ount o f l ost revenue. He
re viewed Chicag o’ s Pizz a, Inc .’s (t he Linco ln locat ion) t ax r et ur ns for 200 0 t hro ugh 2 004 andNo. 1-07- 0679

-11-

spoke to Martin

Fl ores, his assi stant, and hi s accountant. Reme r did n ot revi ew any ot her fi nan ci al records of plai

ntif fs ’. He concl

uded that the Lin

coln locati on’s sal

es decl in ed i n 2002
an d 2003 but i

ncreas ed s ome

wh at in 20 04. He

esti mated th at l ost sal

es f or 2002 a nd 2 003 w ere $830,00 0 and its l

ost pro fi ts were $ 500,000 . The carry-o ut and deliv ery port ions of the busi

ness
sus t ained t he major ity o f the loss es. Flor es t old him that a number of d elivery dr ivers ha d t o be laid o ff. Alt ho ug h t he Linc o ln Ave nu e d ining r o o m o pe ne d in 20 01 , Re mer t es t ified t ha t Ma r t in Fl ores tol d h im tha t it di d not ope n u

nti l 200 2. B el

i ev ing tha t the Li nc ol n A ve nue’ s d ini ng room
was an e xtra source of in

come i n 2002 that the busi

ness did n ot have i n 2001, Rem

er added $250,000 to the dif

feren ce between the

num bers f or 2001 and 2002. Therefore, of the $830,000 he es timate d i

n l ost s al es f or th ose two y ea rs , $2 50, 000

wa s a ttri bu tab l e to th

e dini ng room in come that he beli

eved plai ntif fs h ad in 2002 but no t in 2001. Remer agreed t hat if there was a din in g roo m operatin

g in 2001, hi s num

bers “would ha

ve to be chan

ged.” Rem

er testifi ed that befo re he lear ned t hat t he dining r oo m revenu e nee ded t o be add ed t o t he da mages calcu latio n, he ha d concl uded that pl ai nti f f s’ l ost sal es “ appe ared to b e m

ini mal .” Remer op ined t hat defend ant s’ ac t ions c aus ed t hese loss es. Base d o n his res ear ch, t he depositi ons of Muh

am med, hi s brother, and a dri ver, Rem er concl uded that there was a concerted eff ort to cause confusion between the t wo est abl ish men ts. Defe ndan ts’ tax return for 2002 showed sal es of $30,000 a y

ear, or appro xi

ma tely $100 a day. Remer disco unt ed t he t ax r et ur n, ho weve r, beca use it co nt ra dict ed t he de po sitio n t est imony of Mu hammed, his bro t her , a nd a d river , w ho s t at ed t hat t he da ily sales w er e bet wee n $2, 000 andNo. 1-07- 0679

-12-

$4 , 00 0 a da y. H e a lso ide nt ified mat he mat ica l er r o r s in t he r et ur n a nd st at ed t ha t t he gr o ss pr o fit ratio was understated. No employees we re shown on the tax returns f or 2002 and 2003; ap pa ren tl y de f en da nts ’ e m pl oy ee s w ere

pa i d i n c as h. De f

en da nts ’ b us ine ssrec ords

we re n ot provi ded to Rem

er, wh o cons i dered

the tax return s to be f

raudul en t. Rem er did n ot know the geographi c area that plai ntif fs ’ Li ncol n A ven ue store deli

vered to, nor did he

know how m an y other b usi ne ss h ad a p i zza del ive ry bus i ne ss withi n th e sa m e are a. He di sc oun ted othe r ar ea bu si ne ss es ’ c ontr

i bu ti on to a ny de cre as e i

n p l ai nti f f s’ sa l es ba se d on what Mar t in Flore s t old him. He a lso r elied o n Pizza Today Magazine ’s concl usi on that national pizza consum

ption had not changed much i n the last 15 years. E. Tr i al Cou rt’ s D ec i si

on At the cl ose of pl ai

ntif fs ’ case, def

endan ts moved f

or a directed fi

ndi ng, whi ch the trial court den i ed. Th e tri al resum ed; def en dan ts di d not ca ll an y wi tnes ses but di d pres en t exh i bi ts. The t rial co ur t fou nd t hat Muha mmed was not t ru t hful in hi s ad ver t ising, includ ing his use of t he t r ad ema r k d es ign at io n a nd his c laims o f be ing es t ab lishe d in 19 70 an d h av ing r es t au r an t s in foreign cou ntries; howe ver, t he tr ial cou rt “fai

ls to se e how t his f

alse advert isem

ent hur t P lai

ntiff ’s busi ness.” Furthermore, although Martin Fl ores t estifi

ed that hi s busi

ness was i nj ured because defen dants had “ such an

in feri or pro duct,” “if

Muham med had a b etter product , he m ay have been
m ore ser i ous com peti tion . Bad pi zza

wi ll not surv ive in Chi cago; there

i s too mu ch

com peti tion
. Flo r es ap pa r en t ly do es ha ve a v er y go o d p r o du ct an d h av e v er y lo yal c us t o mer s a t ea ch o f his restaurants. However, in the v ery com petitiv e food busi

ness , he could l

ose them f

or any n umb er of reasons.” The tri al

court concl

uded that plai

ntif fs fai led to meet their burden

of provi ng thatNo. 1-07- 0679

-13-

de fen da nt s int er fer ed wit h t he bu sine ss in su ch a ma nne ras t o ca us e lo st r ev en ue . T he r efo r e, it found for defendan

ts o n al l counts. Plai ntif fs ’ m ot ion f or new trial

was deni ed, and thi s appeal

fol lowed. II. AN AL YSIS A. Man if est Wei ght of the Evi

dence The standard o f revi

ew in a bench trial i s whether the judgmen t is again st t he m

ani fest wei ght of the evi den ce. Dargis v. Paradise

Park, Inc. , 354 Il

l . App. 3d 17 1, 177 ( 2004) . A
re viewing co ur t will not subs t itu t e its judg ment fo r t hat of t he t rial co ur t in a bench t rial unless t he j udgm en t is agai ns t the m an i f est we i ght of the evi den ce. Firs t Baptist C

hurch o f Lombard v. Toll Highw ay Author

ity , 3 01 I ll. App. 3d 5 33, 542 (1 998 ). “A judgment is aga inst t he manifest weight of t he evide nce o nly when the op po site co nclusio n is app ar ent or when findings a ppe ar t o be unreasonab

le , arbi trary, or not based on ev

ide nce.” Judgment Services C orp. v. Sullivan , 32 1 I ll. App. 3d 15 1, 154 ( 2001)
. As t he t rier of fac t , t he t rial judg e wa s in a sup er ior po sitio n t o ju dge t he cr edibility of t he wi tnes ses an d determ

ine the w eight to be

gi ven to thei

r testi m ony . Buckner v. Causey , 31 1 I ll. App. 3d 1 39, 144 (1 999 ). When co nt ra dict or y tes t imony tha t co uld su ppo rt co nfli ct ing concl usi ons i s gi

ven at a bench

trial , an appel

la te court wil

l n ot dis turb the trial

court ’s f actual f indi ngs ba sed on tha t testim ony unl ess a con trary f i ndi ng i s cl earl y appa ren t. Buckner , 31 1 I ll. App. 3d at 144. 1. Denial of directed finding Plai nti f f s f i rs t con tend th at th

e tri al court er red by en teri ng j udgm en t in f av or ofNo. 1-07- 0679

2 While plaintiffs arg ue t hat defend ant s’ exhibit 8 co rr esp ond s t o p laintiffs’ exhibits 4 and 5, exhi bi t 8 is m is si ng f rom the record. -14- defend ant s whe n it d enied t heir mo t ion fo r d irect ed finding p ur sua nt t o s ect ion 2 -1 110 of t he Co de o f Civil

Pr oc edu re (7 35 I LCS 5/ 2- 111 0 ( West 200 4) ) a nd de fendant s did no t pr ese nt any evi dence duri

ng thei r case. Def

endan ts argue that t he ev

ide ntiary record before the trial

court at the tim e of the m

ot ion f or directed fi

ndi ng was n ot the sam

e as the record bef

ore t he court after t rial beca use at t he clo se o f tr ial, t he co ur t co nsider ed a ll of the evidenc e, “including t he t est imony of De f en da nts ’ w itne ss es , Def

en da nts ’ exh i bi ts, a nd the wri tten f ind ing s of f ac t and c onc l

us i ons of law presented by

both part ies.” As pl

ain tiff s point out , defendants did n ot present any wi

tnesses,
an d the e xh i bi ts th ey su bm itted d upl i ca ted plai nti f f s’ tri al ex hi bi ts, with th e e xc ep ti on of defen dants’ ex hi bi ts 7, 8, 2 and 9, whi

ch were sub stantial

ly si mi la r but not t he sam

e. Plai ntif fs ci te Geske v. Geske , 343 Il

l . App. 3d 88 1 (200 3), i

n s upport of

thei r argum en t. In Geske , at t he cl

ose of the pl ai

ntif f’ s case, the def

endan t presented a motion f

or directed fi

ndi ng, whi ch the trial

court deni

ed. The def

endan t rested without pr esenti

ng an y e vi dence, an d the trial court found f

or t he def endan t. On the fi

rst appeal, the court found i n an unpubl ished order pur sua nt t o S upr eme Co ur t Rule 2 3 ( 166 Ill. 2d R. 23) t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d by ent er ing judg ment in t he de fendant ’s favo r be cau se w hen t he de fendant re st ed w itho ut offer ing any ad di ti ona l ev i de nc e, th e i ni ti al de term ina ti on th at th e p l ai nti f f ha d s ati sf i ed hi s req ui red bu rde n of proof w as unc ha

ll en ged. Geske , 34 3 I ll . A pp . 3d at 8 83 . O n

re man d, t h e tr i al cou rt, c itin g i ts pr eviou s ap plicat ion o f an incor re ct st anda rd , d enied t he plaint iff ’s mot ion fo r e nt ry o f judgment in her f avor and rul

ed i n f avor of the def

endan t. On a second appeal , the court aff irm ed the trialNo. 1-07- 0679

-15-

court’sdecisi

on to reopen

the m otion an d correc t its prior rul

ing. Geske , 343 Ill . App. 3d at 885. Unlike t he de fendant in Geske , w h o di d n ot pr es en t any evi den

ce, de f en dan ts he re submi tt ed t heir trial exhi

bits, even if

most w ere t he same as plai ntiff s’. Ther efore, the t rial court ’s init ial d et er minat io n t ha t pla int iffs s at isfie d t he ir b ur de n o f pr o o f wa s no t “u nc ha lleng ed , ” a s it
was in Geske . See Geske , 343 Ill . App. 3d at 883. Furthermore, defen dants’ ex hi bi ts 7 and 9, whi le si mi la r to pla in tif fs ’ exh ib its, are not iden

tical to them. A

lthough pl

ai ntif fs cl ai m that defend ant s’ exhibit 8 dup licate s t heir exhibit s, t hat exhibit is missing fro m the r eco rd , a nd t he omissi on m ust b e con strued

agai ns t pl ai nti f f s. Foutch v. O’Bryant , 99 Ill . 2d 389, 392 (1984) (an appel la nt has the b

urden of presen

ting a suff icie ntly compl ete record o f proceedi

ngs at the trial
court l evel to su ppor t a c l ai m of err or, a nd a re vi ew ing court wi ll res olve an y doub ts a ri si ng f rom the i nc omp l eteness

of th e rec ord agai

ns t the appel

l an t). Bruss v. Klein , 2 10 I ll. App. 3d 7 2 ( 199 1) , is inst ru ct ive. I n Bruss , the def en da n ts pres en ted a m otion f or di rected f indi ng a t the cl ose of the p l ai nti f f ’s cas e, wh

i ch the trial court den i ed. Th e def en dan ts cal l ed one wi

tnes s to the s tand , an d f

oll owing th e tri al , the trial

court
en t er ed jud gme nt fo rt he de fen da nt s. On ap pe al, t he pla int iff ar gu ed t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t ’s r ulin g in favo r o f the defend ant s wa s ag ainst t he manifest weight of t he evide nce be cau se by de nying the motion f or directed fi

ndi ng, the trial

court found that he m

et his burden of

proo f. The c ourt noted t hat , in ru ling on a d efenda nt ’s mot ion fo r d irect ed finding, a t rial co ur t must first det er mine whether the pl

ai ntif f m ade out a prima facie

cas e. Bruss , 210 Ill . App. 3d at 77-78, citin g Kokinis v. Kotrich , 81 Ill . 2d 151, 155 (1980). If a prima facie case exi sts, t hen the trial

judge m ust
co nsider all the e vidence , p ass o n t he cr edibility of wit nesse s, d ra w r eas ona ble inferenc es fro m theNo. 1-07- 0679

-16-

testi m ony , an d con si

der the wei

ght a nd q ual ity of the evi den ce. Bruss , 210 Il

l . App. 3d a

t 78. If the we ighi

ng pro cess resu lts in the negation o f some of the evidence necessary t o t he plai ntiff ’s prima facie

cas e, the court sh oul d gran t the def en dan t’s m otion an d di sm i ss th e ac tion
. Bruss , 210 Il l . App. 3d a

t 78.

“ W e d o not a

gre e w ith p l ai

nti f f ’s argum en t, h owe ve r, th at th e c ourt’ s r

ul ing in th e m oti on fo ra d ire ct ed find ing mus t be co nsid er ed a d et er minat io n t ha t pla int iff’s t es t imo ny w as cr ed ible and t hat his case was t hus p ro ved, pr eclud ing a judg ment fo r d efenda nt s at t he co nclusio n of t he trial .” Bruss , 2 10 I ll. App. 3d a t 78. The co ur t not ed t hat if a defend ant ’s mot ion is de nied, t he court sh oul d con tin ue as i f the m otion ha d not b een

made a nd p roceed wi th tri al
. Bruss , 21 0 I ll. App. 3d at 78, citi

ng Kokinis , 81 Ill . 2d at 155. “The fact t hat the trial court did n

ot grant either of d efenda nt s’ mot ions d oe s no t mean t hat t he co ur t co uld no t ru le for defend ant s at t he concl usi on of the trial , even b ased on a ground rai sed i n the m ot ions .” Bruss , 210 Ill . App. 3d at 78. Th ere

f ore, we f ind tha t the tri al court’ s den

i al of the m oti on f or di rected f ind ing di d not cause i ts fi nal judgm ent to be again st the man

if est weigh t o f the ev

ide nce. 2. Tortious interference w ith business expectanc

y Pl ai n tif f s a l so c onten

d that th e tr i al cou rt’ s f in di n g that Ch i ca

go’ s P i zz a, Inc. f

ai l ed to pr ove t or t iou s inte rfer ence wit h business expe ct ancy wa s ag ainst t he manifest weight of t he evi dence. This tort recog ni

zes that a p erson’s busin

ess relationshi

ps constitut e a pro pert y i

nterest
an d, as suc h, a

re en titl ed to protecti on f

rom u nj usti f i ed tam peri ng b y an other. Miller v. Lockport Realty Group, Inc. , 377 Ill . App. 3d 369, 373 (2007). The elem ents of the tort of i

ntentiona lNo. 1-07- 0679

-17-

inte rf ere nc e w ith a

bu si ne ssex pe cta ncy inc l ude (1) a re as ona

bl e e xp ec tan

cy of en teri ng into a vali d business relationship; (2) t he defendant’s kno wledge o f the expect ancy; (3) the d efendant’s int en t io na l an d u nju st ifie d i nt er fe r en ce t ha t pr ev en t s t he r ea liza t io n o f t he bu sin es s e xp ec t an cy;
an d (4) da

mages resul tin g f rom th e i nterf eren ce. Mannion v. Stallings & Company, Inc. , 20 4 I ll. App. 3d 179, 188 (199 0). A cause o f action f or intentional i

nterference with a busi

ness expe ct ancy nee d no t be bas ed o n an enfo rc eable c ont ra ct t hat is inter fere d wit h; ra t her , it is the interf eren ce wi th the relati onsh

i p tha t creates the a cti onab l e tort. Lusher v. Becker Brothers , Inc. , 155 Il l . App. 3d 86 6, 869- 70 (19 87). Plaint iff s first ar gue t hat t hey pr ove d a r eas ona ble expe ct ancy o f maintaining and ent er ing int o bu sine ss r ela t io nsh ips wit h e xist ing an d n ew cu st o mer s. Sp ec ifica lly, t he y had a r ea so na ble
ex pectan cy of m ai ntai ni ng b usi ne ss re l ati onsh i ps wi th Stern , Poole , Cohe

n, a nd other customer s dece ive d by def en dan ts, and of en teri ng i nto a n ew b usi ne ss re l ati onsh i p wi th DeArm ond. The trial court found that whil e Flores app arently

had a goo d pro duct and loyal custo mers, “i n the very com

petitiv e food busi

ness , he could l

ose any of them for any num ber of reasons .” Sim il arly, defen

dants, ci ting Intervisual Communicati ons, Inc. v. Volkert , 975 F. Supp. 1092 (N .D . I ll. 199 7) , a rg ue t hat offer ing pr oo f of a p ast cus t omer re latio nship is no t sufficient t o p ro ve
a r eas ona ble expe ct at ion o f a fut ur e bus iness r elat ionship. In Intervisual , t he co ur t st at ed t hat t he firs t ele men t r eq uir es t he pla int iff t o “sp ec ifica lly ide nt ify [t hir d] pa r t ies wh o ac t ua lly contempl ated entering in

to a busi ness relati onshi p with h im .” Intervisual , 975 F . Supp. a t 1103. If a p laintiff were not re quir ed t o s pec ifi cally i dent ify par t ies who act ually cont emplat ed e nt er ing in to a b us in es s r el ati on sh i p w ith h im , “ ‘l i ab il ity un de r a th eor y of torti ousin ter f eren ce wi thNo. 1-07- 0679

-18-

prospective b

usi ness expectanci

es would be vi

rtuall y without li

mi t and im possib le to calcul ate.’ ” Intervisual , 975 F. Supp. at 1103, quot in g Celetex Group, Inc. v. Executive Ga llery , 87 7 F. Supp. 1 114, 11 25-26

n.19(N.D. Il

l . 1995)
. It is cl ear that Wolf

Stern contemplated a busi ness relati onshi p with pl ai ntif fs , as he cal

led de f en da nts ’ s tore a

nd as ke d f or th e p hon

e n um be r of the Li nc ol n A ve nue l oca ti on. Th e p ers on Stern spoke to asked f

or his a ddress and s ai d they

could del iv er from the

“She ridan locati on.” W he n h e ord ered f rom de f en da nts , h e b el

i eved he wa s d oing

bu si ne sswi th p l ai nti f f s. J as on Bi tt erman al so ordered from def

endan ts, beli evi ng he was doin g busi ness with the C

hi cago’s Pi zza
on Li n col n an d S h ef f i el d. F ur th er m ore , th i s c our t h asprev i ous l y ru l ed th at “ th e oppor tun ity to obtain custo mers i s an expectancy pro tect ed by

the to rt o f i

nterference with a busi

ness expectancy .” Dow

ners Grove V

olksw agen, Inc. v. Wigglesworth Imports, Inc. , 190 Ill . App. 3d 524, 529 (1989), citin

g North Broadw

ay Motors, Inc. v. Fiat Motors of North America, Inc. , 622 F. S upp . 4 66, 111 7 ( N. D. Ill. 19 84) . S ee a lso R est at ement (S eco nd) of T or t s §7 66B , C omment
c , at 22 (1979) (one type of protected relation i s “i nterferen ce wi th a contin

uin g busi ness or o ther
cus tomar y relati onsh

i p not am ounti ng to a f orma l contract”). Sec ond , t he name o f defend ant s’ r est aur ant and t heir ad ver t ising campa ign sug ges t t he defend ant s’ kno wledg e o f the expe ct ancy. Also, defend ant s de ceived cus t omer s St er n, DeArmond, P oo le, and Cohen into thinkin g t hey were an affi

li ate of plain

tiff s’. Plaint iff s co nt end t hat t hey sat isfied the t hird e lement, t he de fendant ’s int ent ional and
un jus t ified int er fer en ce t ha t pr ev en t s t he r ea liza t io n o f t he bu sine ss ex pe ct an cy. T o pr ev ail, it is ins uf f i ci en t for a p l ai

nti f f to mer el y show that the

def en dan t in terf ered with a b

usi ne ss e xpectancy .No. 1-07- 0679

-19-

Ra th er , “ [t]h e el em en t of ‘pur pos ef ul ’ o r ‘ in ten

ti on al ’ i n ter f eren ce re f er s to som

e i m pr opr i ety
comm itted by the defe ndan t in i nterferi ng wi th the pla in tif f’ s expectan

cy .” Romanek v. Connelly , 32 4 I ll . A pp . 3d 39 3, 4 06(2 00 1) ; Re sta

tem en t (S ec on d) of

Tort s § 76 6B , C om

m en t a , at 20 (1979). Plai

ntif fs mus t pro ve that defe

ndan ts acted “in

tentional ly with the a

im of i nj urin g” pl ai nti f f s’ ex pectan cy . Romanek , 3 24 I ll. App. 3d a t 406 . While “o ne may not simply sue any competito r who lures away customers, *** t he priv il ege of competition is n

ot avai lab le to t hose who use wrongf

ul m eans to in terfere.” Dow

ners Grove V

olksw agen , 190 Ill . App. 3d at 528. Plai ntif fs argue that defendants intentional ly and unj ustifi

abl y preven ted plain tiff s’ reali zation of doi

ng bus in ess wi th Stern, DeArmond, Poole, and C ohen by a ll owing the m to plac e
or der s wit h defend ant s and t hen lying to Po ole a nd De Armo nd abo ut t he affili at ion. While the t rial co ur t fou nd t hat defend ant s us ed a dist inctive lo go on t heir ad ver t ising, w e disa gr ee w ith their arg ument t hat Bitt erman and Cohen simpl y m istoo k defendants’ ad for plaintif fs’. De f en da nts ’ a ds rep res en ted tha t the y ha d n um erou s l oca ti ons wh en the y onl y ha d on e. T wo of the f our l oca ti ons (Dow ntown/

Loop , La ke f ron t/Sh eri da n/ Loy ol a) d es cri bed i n s evera l of defen dants’ ads di

d not match pl

ai ntif fs ’; h owever, two ot hers (Li

ncol n/Shef fi eld, Montrose /W il son) corres ponded wi

th pl ai nti f f s’ Li nc oln , Shef

f i el d, an d Mon trose stores . The f ourth el em en t is dam ages resul tin g f rom th e i nterf eren ce. Mannion , 204 Ill . App. 3d at 1 88 . “A l

th oug h th e a m oun t of an aw ard of l ost pr of i ts n ee d n ot b e proven

wi th ab sol ute certainty , the plai

ntif f bears the burden

of provi ng such dam ages wi th reasonabl

e certain ty.” SK Hand Tool Corp. v. Dresser Industries, Inc. , 2 84 Ill. App . 3 d 4 17 , 4 26 -2 7 ( 19 96 ). Pla int iffs conten d tha t they suf f ered dam ages be caus e def

en dan ts di ve rted f our spe ci f i c orders , an d SternNo. 1-07- 0679

-20-

refused t o do his usual weekly business wi

th plaintif fs f or one year. They also cite Remer’s tes tim ony th at p l ai n tif f s’ l ost sa l esf or 2 00 2 a n d 2 00 3 e x ce eded

$7 30 ,00 0 a

n d th ei r l ost pr of its were $500,000. Signi

fi cantl y, pl ai ntif fs do not chal

le nge an y of the trial court ’s speci

fi c fi ndi ngs as to damages. The tri al

court concl

uded that plai

ntif fs did n ot meet their burden

of provi ng that defen dants i nterfered wi

th their b usi ness in such a m ann er to cause them

to lose revenue. Regardi ng the di versi on of speci

fi c orders, as the trial c ourt found, each witne ss testif

ied th at h e or sh e retu rned to order in g f rom pl ai n tif f s. Fu rth er m ore , the on

l y cu sto m er to testif y asto def en dan ts’ a cti ons d uri ng 2 002 a nd 2 003, th

e tim e wh en pl ai nti f f s al l eged , an d thei

r ex pert t est ifi ed t o, diminished sales, was St er n. Furtherm ore, t he trial

court rejected Remer’s

testim ony b ecause h e di d not conduct an indepe ndent invest igat ion as t o c hange s in the indust ry, t he ar ea o f the city, or of p eo ple’s e at ing habi ts at the t im

e of t he all

eged d ecli ne in revenue. In addition, Remer accept ed Flores’s
ex pl anati on asto lost re v en ue s. W h il e R em er tes tif i ed th at def en da n ts’ re cor ds we re in ac cu ra te and that hi s gross sal

es m ust have been $800,000 a y ear, the trial

court doubted whether def en dan ts earn ed th at m uch i f the f ood was a s b ad as

pl ai nti f f s’ wi tnes ses testi f i ed i t was. I n a dd it io n, Re mer ’s init ial fig ur es we r e b as ed o n e r r o ne o us as su mpt io n t ha t Linc o ln di ni ng r oom di d not open

unti l 2002, w hen i n f act i t opene d i n 20 01. Re

m er agr eed that if there
wa s a di ni ng room operati ng in 2 001 , h

i s n um be rs “ wou l d h ave to b e c ha

ng ed ,” b ut he di d not t est ify as t o w hat t hat chang e wo uld be. He a lso t est ifi ed t hat befo re he lear ned t hat t he dining
roo m reven

ue needed to be added to the damages cal culation, he had concl

uded t hat plai

ntif fs’ lost sal es “appe ared to be mi

ni ma l.” W e fi nd that the trial

court ’s concl

usi on as to damages wasNo. 1-07- 0679

-21-

not again st the man

if est weigh t o f the ev

ide nce. Theref ore, we co ncl

ude that plai

ntif fs fai led to dem

onstrate t hat the trial

court ’s f in din gs as t o t or t iou s inte rfer ence wit h business expe ct ancy we re aga inst t he manifest weight of t he evi dence. 3. Deceptive Trade Pr actices Act Plai ntif fs argue that t hey

are entitled to in

jun ctive reli ef and atto rney f

ees because defen dants vi olated the Deceptiv

e Trade Practices A

ct. The purpose o f the Dec eptive Trade Practices A

ct is to prohibi

t unfai r competition, and i

t is pri ma ril y di rected to ward acts that
unr eas onab l y interf ere w ith an

other’ s con

duct of hi s or her busi

ne ss. Phillips v. Cox , 26 1 I ll. App. 3d 7 8, 81 ( 199 4) . “U nfair co mpet itio n is a bro ade r c onc ept t han t ra demar k infringement
an d d ep en ds up o n lik eliho o d o f co nfu sio n a s t o t he so ur ce o f pla int iff’s go o ds wh en t he wh o le product , rather than j ust the servi ce m ark, is cons ide

red.” Thompson v. Spring-Green L awn Care Corp. , 12 6 Ill. App. 3d 9 9, 1 13 ( 198 4); Phillips , 2 61 I ll. App. 3d a t 81. A plaintiff may be granted reli

ef un der the theory of un

fai r competition regardles s of wh ether hi s product o r servi

ce i s i n di rect com peti tion wi th the def en dan t’s pr oduct or serv

i ce. Thompson , 126 Ill . App. 3d at 113. In relevan

t par t, section 2 of the Decept iv e Trade P ractices Act pro vi des: “A p er so n e ng ag es in a de ce pt ive t r ad e p r ac t ice wh en , in t he co ur se o f his
or her business , vo cat ion, or oc cup at ion, t he pe rso n:

(1) pas ses off goods or se

rvi cesas those of

an other; (2 ) c aus es likelihoo d o f co nfusion o r o f mi sund er st anding a s t o t heNo. 1-07- 0679

-22-

source, sponsor shi

p, appr oval, or cer tifi

cation of goo ds or ser vi

ces; (3 ) c au se s l

i ke l i h ood of con f us i on or of m i sun de rs tan di n g a s to affi liat ion, c onnec tio n, o r ass oc iation w ith o r ce rt ifi cat ion by anot her; ( 4) us es de ce pt ive r ep r es en t at io ns o rde sig na t io ns o f ge o gr ap hic
or igin i n conne ct ion with g oo ds and services; ( 5) r ep r es en t s t ha t go o ds o rse r vic es ha ve sp o nso r ship , ap pr o va l, chara cte ri sti cs , i ng red i en ts, u se s, b en ef its, or qua nti ti es tha t the y do not ha

ve or t hat a pe rso n has a spo nso rship, app ro val, st at us, affil iatio n, o r c onne ct ion t hat he or she does not have;
***

(8) di sp ara

ge s th e g oods , se

rvi ce s, or bu si ne ssof anothe r b y f al se or
m i sl ea di n g repre se

n tati on of f ac t; (9) advertises

goods with i

ntent not t o sell

them a s adverti sed;
*** (12) engages in any

ot her conduct whi

ch si mi larl y creates a l i kel i hood of conf usi on or m i sun ders tand ing.” 815 IL CS 51 0/2(a

) (We st 2004 ). In orde r to pr ev ai l under s ec ti on 2 , “ a p l ai

nti f f need not p rov e * ** a

ctu al con f us i on or
m i sun ders tand ing.” 815 IL CS 51 0/2(b ) (We st 2004 ). T he t r ial c o ur t fo un d t ha t pla int iffs d id n o t pr o ve t ha t de fen da nt s’ co nd uc t ca us ed t he ir l ost rev en ue, a f indi ng that we c oncl

uded i s not agai

ns t the m an i f est we i ght of the evi den ce. However, the Decept iv

e Trade P ractices Act do es not r equire proo f of “ monetary dam

ages, lossNo. 1-07- 0679

-23-

of pr of i t, or i n ten t to deceiv e” to m

er it i n j un cti v e rel i ef . 81 5 I LC S 5 10

/3 (W es t 20 04 ). I n

f ac t, pl ai nti f f s ca nn ot seek d am

ages und er the Dece pti ve Trade Practi cesAc t. Empire Home Services , 274 Ill. App. 3d at 671 ; Greenberg v. United Airlines , 206 Il l . App. 3d 40 , 46 (19 90). Ra ther, a “per so n likely to be da maged by a dec ept ive tr ade pr act ice o f ano t her may be gra nt ed injunct ive relief upo n te rms t hat the co urt co nsiders r easo nable.” 81 5 ILC S 51 0/3 (West 200 4); Greenberg , 206 Ill . App. 3d at 47. See Disc Jockey Referral Netw ork, Ltd. v. Ameritech Publishing of Illinois , 23 0 I ll. A pp . 3d 90 8, 91 5 ( 19 92 ) ( “P r iva t e s uit s fo rinju nc t ive r elie f may be br o ug ht in si tua ti ons wh ere one com pe titor i s harm

ed or m ay be ha rm ed by the un f ai r trade pra cti ce s of
ano t her ”) . I n Bingham v. Inter- Track Partners , 23 4 I ll. A pp . 3d 61 5, 62 1 ( 19 92 ) , t he co ur t he ld tha t “ inj uncti ve rel i ef i s w arran ted wh en a p arty ’s trad e p racti ce cre ate s a l i ke l i hood of con f us i on of m i sun ders tand ing.” De fend ant s a rg ue t hat t hey d id no t “pa ss o ff” t heir go o ds and se rv ice s a s t ho se o f pla int iffs beca use t he wo rd s “Chicag o’ s Pizz a” a re gene ric and des cr ipt ive of t he pa rt ies’ loc at ion and go o ds
. T he y als o po int o ut t ha t t he y pr o minen t ly dis pla y t he ir d ist inc t ive lo go o n t he ir adverti si ng, m en us, a nd te l eph one b ook li

sti ngs . We di sagree with defendan ts and conclude that plai

ntif fs dem onstr ated t hat defendants’ trad e pract ices created a li keli hood o f conf

usion or mi sunderstanding. Specif ical ly , defendants’ trade pract ic es (1) cause the l ike li hood of confusi

on or o f m

isunderstandi

ng as to the source, spon sorsh i p, approval, or certi

f i cation of goods an d se rvi ces , in v i ola tion of s ubs ection 2(a

)(2); (2) ca us e th e l i ke l i hood of con f us i on or of m i su nd ers tandi ng as to af f il i ati on, con necti on, or association with or cert if

ication b y an ot her, in v

iolation of subsection 2(a)(3 ); and (3) useNo. 1-07- 0679

-24-

dec ept ive rep re sent at ions o r d esigna t ions o f geo gr aphic o rigin in co nnect ion wit h go od s and servi ces, i n vi olation of subsection 2(a)(4). See Multiut Corp. v. Draiman , 359 Ill . App. 3d 527, 537 (200 5). Defendants have al so engaged in “ any ot her conduct whi

ch si mi larl y creates a li keli hood o f conf

usion or mi sunderstanding,” i n vi olation of subsection 2(a)(12) . 815 I LCS 510/2 (a)(12 ) (We st 2004 ). In addi tion to t he si

mi la r nam e, defen dants’ m enus, coupons, and ads

fal sel y a dvertis ed
num erous locations, ev

en though they

only had one. The ads

urged customers to “call

for y our
ne ares t loca

tion ” an d ha d di f f eren t num be rs f or the di f f eren t “l ocati ons.”The se phone n um be rs
co rr esp ond ed t o e ach o f the pho ny locat ions, so defend ant s ap pea re d t o ha ve loc at ions in differe nt par t s o f the city. Tw o o f defend ant s’ “loc at ions” (Linco ln/She ffi eld, Mo nt ro se/ Wilson)
co rr esp ond ed t o p laintiffs’ loca t ions o n Linco ln, She ffi eld, and M ont ro se/ Wilson. Ad ding t o t he confusion, many

of the ads and coupo ns that t out ed mul tiple “ locations” did n

ot have def

endants’
own a ddres s on th

em . Whi le def endants blame the customers for t hei r own alleged “

mistakes,” it was defen

dants’ ads that caused thei

r confusi on. Indeed, pla

in tif fs proved not o nl

y a likelihood of

con f us i on or misunderstandi

ng as a res ult of def

endan ts’ ads and coupons, as requi red by the Deceptiv

e Trade Pra cti ce s A ct, b ut a l so actual confus ion b

y c ustomers. See Thompson , 126 Il l . App. 3d a

t 113. For exampl

e, Anthony Poole, an establi shed customer o f pl ain tiff s’, test if ied that defendants’ empl oyee to ld h

im he was ordering from the Wi lson “ location,” when plai

ntif fs, not defendants, had a restaurant on Wi

ls on. Sim il arly, Wolf Stern, also a regul ar customer of plai ntif fs ’, cal led def en dan ts becaus e he wan

ted the phon e n um be r f or the L inc oln Av en ue l ocati on. SternNo. 1-07- 0679

-25-

speci fi cal ly testifi ed that when h

e ordered a pizza, h

e bel ie ved h e was doin

g busi ness with a n aff il ia te of plai ntif fs ’. Wh en h e cal led defen dants to co mpl

ai n ab out the poor qual

ity of the f ood,
an em ploy ee off ered hi m a dis count, which

would be good at the Li

ncol n A ven ue “l ocation,” even thou gh plai

ntif fs, not defendants, had a resta urant o n Li ncoln A venue. Mary DeA

rmond als o t est ifi ed t hat one of d efenda nt s’ emplo yees t old her t hat t heir r est aur ant was affil iate d wit h t he Ch i cago’ s Pi zza on Mon trose. Si m il arl y , Jose ph B itterma

n s aw an ad f or Chi cago’ s Pi zza wi th di f f eren t phone n um be rs for diff erent locations . Bitterman cal led the num

ber f or t he She

ff ie ld “ locati on” bel

ie vi ng he was
ca ll ing plai nti f f s’ res tauran

t on S he f f i el d a nd plac ed an orde r. J udi th L ev ine , a cus tom

er of plai nti f f s’ f or 15 y ea rs , b el i eved tha t de f en da nts ’ c oupon , wh

i ch l i ste d th ree “ l oca ti ons ,” w as f

or pla in tif fs ’ restaurants until

she attempted to use it. Fi nal ly, Patricia

Fl ores test if ied that she cal

led a pho ne number on o ne o f defend ant s’ ad s and was advise d t hat it w as a ffi liated wit h t he Chi cago’s Pi zza on Montrose. Martin and Patrici a Fl ores also testif

ied that t hey

received a
nu m be r of cu stom er c om plai nts reg ard ing de f en da nts ’ produ cts , ev

en thou gh the y we re n ot pl ai nti f f s’
. In Phillips , the plai

ntif fs bought the defen

dant’s si gn-m aki ng bus in ess, whi ch i ncl uded both re al an d pers onal

property an d the ri ght to use

the nam e “ Dav i d Cox Si gns .” Si

x y earsl ater, the defendant opened a sign-m akin g busi ness nex t do or t o t he pl ain

tiff s and nam ed hi s busi

ness

“ Da vi d R . Cox d/b /a Si gn De si gn an d C onstruc ti on. ” Th

e p l ai nti f f s f il ed a c om plai nt f or injunct ive relief, c laimi

ng t hat t he de fendant diver t ed t he plaint iff s’ cu st omer s, t her eby dep riving t hem of sa les and re venue . T he co mplaint w as d ismi ssed . O n app eal, t he co ur t app lied t heNo. 1-07- 0679

-26-

“bro ad lang uag e” o f subse ct ion 2 (1 2) of t he De cep t ive Tr ade Pr act ices Act and no t ed t hat any
co nd uc t t ha t cr ea t es a lik eliho o d o f co nsu mer co nfu sio n o rmisu nd er st an din g is po t en t ially act ionable u nder subs ect ion 2 (1 2) , e ven if the co nduc t is not spe cifically co ver ed by o t her sec t ions of th e ac t. Phillips , 26 1 I ll . A pp . 3d at 8 1- 82 . Th

e c our t h el d that th e p l ai n tif f al l eg ed f ac ts suff ici ent to stat e a cause of action because (1) t he defen dant located hi s sign

-maki ng busi ness next doo r to the plai

ntif fs’ b usin ess, (2) bo th part ies were engaged i n the same ty

pe of busi ness,
an d ( 3) t he de fen da nt wa s o pe r at ing his b us ine ss un de ra n ame t ha t is “v er y similar ” t o t he na me
use d by the p l ai nti f f s. Phillips , 261 Ill . App. 3d at 83. Simil ar ly, in Empire Home Services , t he plaint iff ’s ad ver t ising emphasize d a t elepho ne
num ber, 588-2300, which gen erated more than 1,000 responses a day . The def

endan t began
us ing t he ph o ne nu mbe r58 8- 32 00 , an d w he n so me p o t en t ial E mpir e c us t o mer s mis t ak en ly phoned the def

endan t, t old the customers that they reached Em

pire, or a compan

y “ jus t li ke Empi re.” The def

endan t referred the customers to Carpet Ameri ca, whi ch contacted the cal

le r
an d cl ai m ed to be Em pi re, us ing a

sal es prese ntati on an d purcha se orde

rs si m il ar to Em pi re’s
. The co ur t ru led t hat t he co mplaint st at ed a claim under subs ect ions 2 (1 ), (2 ), and ( 3) of t he Dece pti ve Trade Practi cesAc t. Empire Home Services , 274 Il l . App. 3d a

t 670. Wh il e Phillips and Empire involved t he su ffi ciency o f co mplaints r at her t han t he sufficiency of t he pr oo f at t rial, t hey demo nst ra t e t he t ype o f co nduc t t hat t his co ur t has fo und vi olativ e of the Decepti

ve Trade Practices

Act. Defen

dants used a si

mi la r nam e, and thei

r ads adve rt ised nu mero us lo cat ions, so me of w hich co rr esp ond ed t o p laintiffs’ loca t ions o n Linco ln, Sheff iel d, and Mont rose/Wil son. In light o f the evi dence of defen

dants’ ads, menus, and coupo ns,No. 1-07- 0679

-27-

an d th e p oten ti al f or c us tom er con f us i on , w e f

in d th at p l ai n tif f s d em on strate d that def

en da n ts violated sect ion 2 of the Deceptive Trade Pract ices A ct. Furthermore, although defendan ts’
re sta ur an t i s cur re n tl y cl osed, M uham m ed tes tif i ed th at a f ter thi s l iti ga ti on en ds , he p l an s to reopen hi s busi

ness he pl ans to reopen hi s busi

ness under the na

me “Ch ic ago’s Piz za,” thus pe rp etu ati n g th e p oten ti al f or c on f us i on . Th

eref ore , w e f in d that p l ai

n tif f s a re en ti tled to inj unct ive relief. 815 I LCS 5 10/ 3 (Wes t 2 004 ); Empire Home Services , 274 Ill . App. 3d at 671; Greenberg , 206 Ill . App. 3d at 46. In a ddi tion , costs or attorne

y f eesmay be ass ess ed ag ai

ns t a def en dan t “onl y i f the c ourt f inds that h e h as w ilf ul l y en gage d i

n a dece pti ve trade practi

ce.” 815 IL

CS 51 0/3 (W

est 200 4). “W il lf ul”is defi ned as “ volun tary and i ntentiona l, b ut not necess aril

y m al icious.” Bl

ack’s La w Dic t io na r y (8 t h e d. 20 04 )
. Mu ha mmed de nie d k no win g a bo ut pla int iffs’ r es t au r an t s u nt il t his la wsui t was fi led in 2003. Even assumi

ng that to be the cas e, the uncontroverted custo me r tes tim ony wa s th at def en da n ts c ontinue d to m

i sl ea d c on sum er s a b out th ei r a ss oci ati on wi th pl ai n tif f s’ re sta ur an ts a f ter th e c om pl ai n t wa s f il ed . Th eref ore , w e f in d b ec au se

de f en da n ts “wi lf ull y en gaged in a deceptive trade pract ice,” pl ain tiff s are entitled to reasonable atto rney f ees. 4. Consumer F

raud Act Pl ai nti f f Ch i cago’ s Pi zza , Inc ., al so al

l eged a vi ola tion of th e Con sum er F raud A ct. Sec t ion 2 of t he Co nsumer Fra ud Ac t pr ovid es t hat t he us e o f any pra ct ice de scr ibed in sec t ion 2 of the Decepti

ve Trade Practices

Act al so constitutes a violation of the Consum

er Fraud Act. 815 ILC S 5 05/ 2 ( West 200 4) . While plaint iff s ar e ent itled t o injunct ive relief und er t he De cep t ive Tr ade Pr act ices Act , t he sa me do es no t app ly f or Chicag o’ s Pizz a, Inc .’s claim for vio latio n of t heNo. 1-07- 0679

-28-

Con sum er Frau d A ct. S ec t io n 1 0a ( c) o f t he Co ns um er Fr au d A ct pr o vid es t ha t “in a ny a ct io n br o ug ht by a person under t hi s Section, t he Court may grant inj unctive rel

ief where appro priate.” 815 ILCS 505/10a( c) (West 200 4). We have previously hel d that the “Consumer Fraud Act pro vi des a pr ivat e c au se o f ac t io n o nly whe re a p laint iff can sho w t hat he s uffe re d d ama ge as a r es ult o f unlawful conduct proscribed b

y the statut e.” Smith v. Prime Cable of Chicago , 276 Ill . App. 3d 843, 859 (1995). Although “ a violation of the Con su m er F rau d A ct m ay occ ur i n th e a bs en ce of dam ages, a private cause of action do es no t ar ise abse nt a sho wing o f bot h a violat ion and
resul tant da mages .” (Em

pha si s i n ori gi na l .) Tarin v. Pell onari , 253 Il l . App. 3d 54 2, 554 ( 1993)
. We f in d that Chicago’s Pi zza, Inc.’s f ailure to prove actual dam ages, as descri

bed ab ove, prec l ud esda mag esor i

n j un cti v e rel i ef un de r th e C on sum er Frau d A ct. B. Di scov

ery Fi n al l y , pl ai n tif f s c onten d that th e tr i al cou rt p re cl ud ed th em f rom en gagi n g i n com pl ete dis co ve r y co nc er ning de fen da nt s’ fina nc ial a nd bu sine ss r ec o r ds an d t he ide nt it y o f t he ir
cus tomer s. A

tria l court ha s gre at l ati

tude i n ru l ing on di scovery

matters. Mutlu v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. , 337 Il

l . App. 3d 42 0, 434 ( 2003) . A trial court’srul

ings on su ch matters wi ll not be di sturb ed ab sen

t a man i f est ab use of d i scre tion
. Mutlu , 337 Il

l . App. 3d a

t 434. Plai ntif fs argue that t he trial court er red when it deni ed them access to defendants’ “f ina nc i al an d bu si ne ss records”an d com

puter-b ase d cus tomer

l i sts. Pl ai nti f f s do not, however, ci te to pages of the record for thei r requests or t he trial

court ’s den

ia l. Indeed, it i s uncl

ear what request s plai

ntif fs are referrin

g to . Therefore, we consider this argumen t waived. 210 Ill. 2d R.No. 1-07- 0679

-29-

341 (h)( 7); Feret v. Schillerstr om , 363 Il

l . App. 3d 53 4, 541 ( 2006)
. III. CONCLUSION Plai nti f f s have f ai l ed to de m onstrate tha t the tri al court’ s f ind ing s a s to th

ei r cl ai m s f or tortious i nterf eren ce a nd c onsu m er f raud a re aga ins t the m an i f est we i ght of the evi den ce. Ho weve r, we find t hat plaint iff s ar e ent itled t o injunct ive relief and at t or ney fees p ur sua nt t o t he Dec ept ive Tr ade Pr act ices Act . T her efo re , w e r ever se in pa rt and r emand fo r e nt ry o f inj unct ive reli ef and a determi

nation as to r easonable atto rney f ees. Af fi rmed i n part and revers ed i

n part; cause rem

anded. CA MPB ELL an d O’ BRIEN , JJ., c oncu r.No. 1-07- 0679

-30- REPORT ER OF D ECI SION S – ILLI NOIS APPE LLATE COURT

(Fron t Sh eet to be Attach ed to Each Case) CHIC AG O’S P

IZZ A, INC., CHICAGO’ S BEST, IN C., an d FL OVIG, I NC., Plai ntif fs-Appel lan ts, v. CHI CAGO ’S P IZZ A FRANC HI SE LIM IT ED US A f/k/ a PI ZZA US A, I NC. , a nd IRFANU LLA H MUHAM

MED, Def en dan ts-A ppel l ees .

No. 1-07 -0679 Appellate Court of Illinois Fir st D ist ri ct, FOURT H Divi sion Aug ust 7, 2008 (Giv e mont

h, da y and y ea r)

JUST ICE M ICHAEL J. M URPHY delivered the opinion of the court : Cam pbe ll , and O’B rie n, J J., co ncu r.
dissents.

Lo w er C ou rt and Tria l Judg e( s) in f

orm indi ca te d in t he m argi n: Honora ble Bar ba ra Disko, Judge Pr esiding

Indicate if

attorney repre sents APPE LLA NT S or APPE LLE ES and include attorneys of

counsel. Indi cate the word NON E if not repr esented. FOR AP PEL LANT S: Craig D. Tobi n, Tom as Petk us Tobi n, P et ku s & Munoz LL

C, Three First Natio

nal Pl aza, Suite 1 950, Chi cago , IL 60602 Phon e: 312-641-13 21

FOR APP

ELLEE S: St even J. Ha mpt on, Ron al d A. DiC erb o, Mic ha el J. Kr au tner

McAndr ews, Held & Ma lloy, Lt d. 500 W. Madi son

Stree t, 34th Flo

or, Chicago , IL 60661 Phon e: 312-775- 8000 (USE R EVERSE SIDE IF NEEDED) Please Use Fo llo w ing Fo rm:
Comple te TIT LE of Case

Docket No. COUR T Opinion Fi led
JUSTICES

APPE AL from the Ci rcuit Cour t of Cook Co un t y, Illino is. For APPEL LA NTS, Joh n Doe , of Chi cago. For APPEL LEES, Sm ith and Sm ith of Chicago, Joseph Brown, (of Co unsel)
Also add at tor ne ys for third- party ap pe ll an ts or appellees.