FOURTH D I VI SI ON

DI L LA RD, P. J.

, RI C KM A N, P. J.

, and BROWN, J.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

D E A D LIN E S A R E N O LO N G E R TO LLE D IN T

H I S

C O U R T. A LL FILIN G S M U ST B E S U B M I TTE D WITH IN

TH E TIM E S S E T B Y

O U R C O U R T R U LE S

.

Febr uar y 5, 2021



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 0 A2 12 1

. CAROLINE M AKI et al

. v

. REAL ESTATE EXPERT

ADVISORS INC.

D I LLA R D , Pres i d i n g J u d g e.

Ou r ad v ers ari al s y s t em i s p r e m is ed o n t h e id ea t h at l eg al d i s p u t es are b es t

res o l ved t h ro u g h t h e s t rat eg i c bat t l e wag ed b y ad vo cat es rep res en t i n g t h ei r cl i en t s ’

b es t i nt eres t s b efo re a f

ai r an d i m

p art i al ju ry

. Bu t ev ery s o o ft en

, co u n s el fo r b o th

p art i es n eg l ec t t o p ro v i d e t h e t ri al co u rt wi t h t h e i n fo rm at i o n i t n eed s t o p ro p erl y

d eci d e a cas e, an d t hi s fai l ure— n o m at t er h o w i n ad vert en t

— can s o m et im es res u l t in

a p ro ceed i n g wi t h a s u bs t an t i al erro r t h at i s h arm fu l as a m at t er o f l aw. Th i s i s s u ch

a cas e.Fo l l owi n g a b ifu rcat ed ju r y t r i al

, Caro l i ne M ak i an d Th e Mak i Gro u p Real

Es t at e Ex p ert Ad v i s o rs

, LLC 1 were fo u n d l i ab l e fo r m i sap p ro p ri at i ng t he t rad e n am e

o f Real Es t at e Ex p ert Ad v i s ors

, In c. 2 On ap p eal

, M ak i arg u es

, i n t er a l i a

, t h at t h e t ri al

co u rt erred b y fai li n g t o i n s t ru ct t h e ju ry o n t h e “ l i k el ih o o d -o f-co n fu si o n ” an al y s i s

n eces s ary t o reach i t s v erd i ct

. 3 Becau se we ag ree wi t h M ak i , we rev ers e.

Vi ewed i n th e li g h t m o s t fav o rab l e t o th e ju ry ’ s v erd i ct

, 4 t h e reco rd s ho ws t h at

REEA i s a real es t at e b ro k erag e fi rm s peci al i zi n g in faci l i t at i n g res i d en ti al p u rch as es

1 Fo r eas e o f referen ce, Caro l i n e M ak i an d Th e M ak i Gro u p Real Es t at e Ex p ert

Ad v i s o rs , LLC are co ll ect i v el y referred t o as “ M ak i ” t h ro u g h o u t t h e o p i n io n

.

2 Fo r eas e o f referen ce, Real Es t at e Ex p ert Ad v i s o rs

, In c. wi l l be referred to as

“ REEA” t h ro u g h ou t t he o p i n io n

.

3 M ak i s ep arat el y arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n fai li n g t o g ran t ju d g m en t

n o t wi t h s t an d i n g t h e verd i ct b ecau s e REEA’ s m ark as ap p l i ed t o i t s s erv ices is g en eri c

an d m erel y d es cri p t i v e. M ak i al s o co n t en d s t h at th e co u rt li k ewi s e erred i n en t eri n g

a ju d g m en t award i n g act u al dam ag es ag ai n s t i t fo r v i o l at i n g t h e Geo rg ia Un i fo rm

Decep t i ve Trad e Pract i ces Act wh en th at s t at u t e o n l y p erm i t s i n j u n ct iv e rel i ef.

Fi n al l y

, M ak i m ai n tai n s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n award i n g REEA at t o rn ey fees an d

l i ti g at i o n ex p en s es un d er OCGA § 1 3 -6 -1 1

, as w el l as p u ni t i v e dam ag es

. Bu t we n eed

n o t ad d res s an y o f t h es e en u m erat i o n s o f erro r b ecau s e M ak i i s en t i tl ed t o a n ew t ri al

.

4 S ee, e.g

. , B l o o m v. Ca mp

, 3 3 6 Ga. Ap p

. 8 9 1

, 8 92 (1 ) (7 8 5 SE2 d 5 73 ) (2 0 1 6 )

(“ Th e ‘ an y ev i d en ce’ s t a n d ard o f rev i ew ap pl i es t o t h i s arg u m en t

, t h at is

, we m u s t

affi rm i f t h ere i s an y ev i d en ce t o s u p p o rt t he ju ry ’ s v erd i ct

, an d i n m a k i n g t h i s

d et erm i n at i o n

, we m

u s t co n s t ru e t h e ev i d en ce i n t h e l i g h t m o s t fav o rab l e t o

. . . t h e

p rev ai l i n g p art y .”).

2an d s al es

. REEA h as b een i n b u s i n es s an d o p erat i n g u n d er t he n am e o f “ Real Es t at e

Ex p ert Ad v i s o rs ” s i n ce 20 1 4

. An d p ri o r to REEA’ s us e o f t h i s n am e, n o o t h er

co m p an y , b u si n es s , o r i n d i v i du al u s ed t h o s e fo u r wo rd s i n t h at ex act o rd er. In d eed

,

REEA s pen t m il l i o n s o f d o ll ars t o ad vert is e a n d p r o m o t e i t s nam e in t h e m et ro

At l an t a area— i n cl u d i ng Gwi n n et t Co u n t y

— s i n ce 2 0 1 4.

REEA l earn ed t h at Mak i was u si ng “ Real Es t at e Ex pert Ad vi s o rs ” i n i t s

ad v ert i s in g

, an d

, s h o rt l y t h e r eaft er, s en t a d em an d l et t er t o M ak i req u es ti n g t h at i t

i m m ed i at el y ceas e u s e o f “ Real Es t at e Ex p ert Ad v i s ors .” M ak i refu sed t o d o s o

, an d

REEA fi l ed s u i t ag ai n st Mak i

, s eek i ng a t em p o rary an d p erm an en t i n

ju n ct i o n u n d er

t h e Geo rg i a U n i fo rm Decep t i v e Trad e Pract i ces Act , d am ag es fo r m i s ap p ro p ri at i o n

o f a t r a d e n am e, at t o rn ey fees an d l i t i g at i o n ex p en ses

, an d pu n i t i ve d am ag es

. M ak i

co u nt ercl ai m ed ag ai n s t REEA, s eek i n g d am ag es as a res u l t o f REEA “ wi l l fu l l y an d

reck l es s ly

m a[k i n g ] fal s e rep res en tat i o ns t o [t he co u rt ] t o p erp et rat e a frau d o n [t h e

co u rt ] wi t h t h e go al o f s t i fl in g l eg al co m p et i ti o n i n t he real es t at e i n du s try ” an d in

v i o l at i o n o f OCGA § 1 0 -1 -3 7 2 (a) (8 ).

A ju ry ret u rn ed a verd i ct in fav o r o f REEA, award i n g a t t o rn ey fees an d

d am ag es an d

, fo ll o wi n g a s eco n d t ri al

, p u n i t i v e d am ag es

. Ad d i t i o nal l y

, t h e j u ry ru l ed

i n REEA’ s fav or o n M ak i ’ s co u n t ercl ai m s

. Th e t ri al co u rt t h en i s s u ed ju d g m en t o n

3t h e ju ry ’ s v erd i ct s a nd i s su ed t h e t em p orary i nju nct i o n req u es ted b y REEA. M ak i

s o u g ht ju d g m en t n o t wi t h s t an d in g t he v erd ict

, wh i ch t h e t ri al co urt s u m m ari l y d en i ed

.

Th i s ap p eal fo l l o ws

.

1

. M ak i arg u es t h at th e t ri al co u r t erred b y fai l i n g t o i n st ru ct t he ju ry o n t h e

l i kel i h o o d-o f-co n fu s io n an al y s i s n eces s ary t o reac h i t s v erd i ct

. M ore sp eci fi cal l y

,

M ak i co n t en d s th at t h e t ri al co urt n eg l ect ed t o p ro v i d e t h e ju ry wi t h t h e s ev en -fact o r

an al y s i s t h at m

u s t b e ap p l i ed t o cl ai m s b ro u g h t u n d er th e Geo rg i a Un i fo rm Decep t i v e

Trad e Pract i ces Act . W e ag ree.

M ak i as s ert s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt was req u i red t o i n st ru ct t he ju ry t o d et erm i n e

t h e “ li k el i h o od o f co nfu si o n” b as ed u p o n t h e fo l l owi n g s ev en fact o rs :

(1 ) t h e s tren g th an d d i s t i n ct i v en es s o f t h e pl ai n t i ff’ s m ark ; (2 ) th e

s i m i l ari t y o f t h e m ark s ; (3 ) t h e si m i lari t y o f t h e p ro d u ct s t h e m ar k s

rep res en t ; (4 ) th e s i m i l ari t y o f t h e p art i es ’ ret ai l o u t let s an d cu st o m ers ;

(5 ) t h e s i m i l ari t y o f ad v ert i s i n g m ed ia; (6 ) t h e d efen d an t ’ s in t en t ; an d (7 )

act u al co n fu s i on

.

Im p o rt an t l y

, i n Acker ma n S

ecu r i t y S ys t ems

, In c. v. Des i

g n S ecu r i ty S ys t ems

, In c.

, 5 we

n o t ed t h at t h e “ ap p ro p ri at e leg al t es t ” fo r cl ai m s b ro u g h t un d er th e Geo rg i a Decep t i v e

Trad e Pract i ces Act i s t h e l i k el ih o od -o f- c o n fu s i o n t es t

, wh ich req u i res t h e

5 2 0 1 Ga. Ap p . 8 0 5 (4 1 2 SE2 d 5 8 8 ) (1 9 9 1 ).

4ex am i n a t i o n o f a n um b er o f el em en t s

, i n cl ud i n g t h o s e M ak i as s ert s m u s t b e

co n si d ered

. 6 An d o f t h es e fact o rs

, fed eral co u rt s hav e ex pl ai n ed t hat “ th e t y pe o f m ark

an d th e ev i d en ce o f act ual co n fu s i o n are t h e m o s t i m p o rt an t .” 7 Bu t t h es e s ev en fact o rs

“ are n o t ex cl u si v e,” an d each fact o r n eed n ot b e co n s i d ered i n ev ery cas e. 8

Here, t h e t ri al co u rt i n s t ru ct ed t h e ju ry

, i n rel ev an t p art , as fo ll o ws :

A p ers o n en g ag es i n d ecep t i v e t rad e pract ice wh en

, i n t h e co urs e

o f h er b u s i n e s s

, v o c a t io n

, o r o ccu p at i o n

, s h e p as s es o ff g o o d s o r

s erv ic e s a s t h o s e o f an o t h er; cau s es l i k el i h o o d o f co n fu s i o n o r o f

6 Id

. at 8 0 6 (1 ); see ITT Co r p

. v

. Xyl em G r

p., LLC

, 9 6 3 FSu p p 2 d 1 30 9

, 1 3 2 7

(6 ) (ND Ga. 2 0 1 3 ) (“ W h et h er co n fu s i o n o ccu rs u n d er [t h e] Geo rg i a Decep t i v e Trad e

Pract i ces Act

, [OCGA] § 10 -1

- 3 7 2

, req u i res t h e sam e ‘ l i k el i h o o d o f co n fu s i o n ’

an al y s i s fo u n d i n t rad em ark -i n fri n g em en t cl ai m s u n d er t h e Lan h am Act .”).

7 Ca l i b er Au to

. Li q u id

at o r s

, In c. v. P remi er Ch r

ys l er

, Jeep

, D o d

g e, LLC

, 6 0 5

F3 d 9 3 1

, 9 35 (II) (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 1 0 ) (p u n ct u at i o n om i t t ed ); a cco r d Fr eh l i n g En t er s

. v.

In t ’l Sel ect Gr ou

p

, In c.

, 1 9 2 F3 d 1 3 3 0, 1 3 35 (III) (1 1 t h Ci r. 1 9 99 ); Co s t a F a r ms

, LLC

v. Co st a Tr o

p i ca l s & Fl ower

s

, In c.

, 2 0 1 3 W L 1 20 9 2 4 7 3

, at * 4 (III) (A) (2 ) (SD Fl a.

2 0 1 3 ); s ee Pl a

yNa t i o n Pl ay S

ys

., In c. v. Vel ex Co rp

. , 9 2 4 F3 d 1 1 5 9

, 11 6 5 (II) (1 1 th

Ci r. 2 0 1 9 ) (“ Of t h es e fact o rs

, t h e s t ren g t h o f t h e m ark an d act u al co n fu s i o n are t h e

m o st p ro bat i v e.”).

8 S ee Pl a yNa t i o n Pl a

y S ys

., In c.

, 9 2 4 F2 d at 1 1 6 9 (II) (D) (“ Th es e fact o rs are

n o t ex cl u s i v e. Co u rt s d o no t hav e t o co ns i d e r e v e r y fact o r i n ev ery cas e.”); S wa t ch

W a t ch

, S .A. v. Ta xo r

, In c.

, 7 8 5 F2 d 9 5 6

, 9 58 (A) (1 1 th Ci r. 1 9 8 6 ) (“ Th e co u rt d o es

n o t h av e t o co n s id er al l o f t h es e fact o rs in ev ery cas e an d i n s o m e cas es

, ‘ n ew’ fact o rs

m ay m eri t co n si d erat i o n

. Th e real q u es t i o n i s wh et h er t h e co u rt ’ s u l t i m at e

d et erm i n at i o n ab ou t t h e ‘ l i kel i h o o d o f co n fu si o n ’ w as co rrect .” (em p h as i s &

p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed )).

5m i s u n d ers t an d i n g as t o t h e s o u rce, s p o n s o rs h i p, ap p r o v al

, o r

cert i fi cat i on o f go o d s or s erv i ces ; cau s es l i k el ih o o d o f co n fu s io n o r o f

m i s u n d ers t an d i n g as t o aff i li at i o n

, co n nect i o n or as s o ci at i o n wi th

, o r

cert i fi cat i on b y an o t h er; o r en g ag es i n an y o th er co n d u ct w hi ch s im il arl y

creat es a l i kel i h o o d o f co n fu s i on o r o f m i s u n ders t an d in g

.

In ord er t o p rev ai l i n an act i o n u n d er th e Geo rg i a Un i fo rm

Decep t i v e Trad e Pract i ces Act

, t h e p lai n t i ff n eed n o t p ro v e co m p et i t i o n

b et ween t he p art i es o r act u al co n fu s i o n o r m i su n ders t an d i n g

.

So

, M ak i i s co rrect t hat t h e tri al co u rt d i d n o t in s t ru ct t h e ju ry as to t h e s ev en

l i kel i h o o d-o f-co n fu s io n fact o rs

. 9 Bu t t h is d o es n o t en d o u r i nq u i ry

.

M ak i ’ s req u es t s t o ch arg e d i d n o t co n t ai n an in s t ru ct i o n as t o t h e l ik el ih o o d -o fco n fu s i o n an al y s i s

. 1 0 An d i t i s u n d i s p ut ed t h at M ak i i s su ed n o o bject i o n to t h e t ri al

9 Cf

. Jo h n H. Ha r la nd Co

. v. Cl a r ke Ch ecks

, In c.

, 7 1 1 F2 d 9 6 6

, 97 3 (III) (1 1 th

Ci r. 1 9 8 3 ) (“ In t h is cas e, th e d i s t ri ct co u rt p ro p erl y in s t ru ct ed t h e j u ry o n t h e fact o rs

i t s h o u l d co n s i d er i n d et erm i n i n g wh et h er th ere was a l i kel i h o o d o f co n fu s i o n

. . . .”).

1 0 See OCGA § 5 -5 -2 4 (b ) (“ In al l cas es

, at t he cl o s e o f t h e ev i den ce o r at s u ch

earl ier t i m e d u ri ng th e t ri al as th e co u rt reas o n ab l y d irect s

, an y p art y m ay p res en t to

t h e co u rt wri t ten req u es t s th at i t i n s t ru c t t h e j u ry o n t h e law as s et fo rt h t h erei n.

Co p i es o f req u es t s s h al l be g i v en t o o p p o s in g co u n s el fo r t hei r co n s id erat i o n p ri o r to

t h e ch arg e o f t h e co u rt

. Th e co u rt s h al l i nfo rm co u n s el of i t s p ro p o sed act io n u p o n t h e

req u e s t s p ri o r t o t hei r arg u m en t s t o t he ju ry b u t s h al l i ns t ru ct t he ju ry aft er t h e

arg u m en t s are co m

p l et ed

. Th e t ri al ju d g e s h a l l fi l e wi t h t h e cl erk al l req u es t s

s u b m i t t ed t o h i m , wh et h er g i ven i n ch arg e o r n o t .”).

6co u rt ’ s i n s t ru ct i o ns t o t h e ju ry

. 1 1 As a res u l t, we rev i ew th i s as s ert io n o n l y fo r

“ s u b s t an t i al erro r” b ecau s e, “ [n ] o t wi t h s tan d i n g an y o t h er p ro v i s i o n of [OCGA § 5 -5

-

2 4 ]

, t h e ap p el l at e co u rt s s h al l co n s i d er an d r e vi ew erro n eo u s ch arg es [wh en ] t h ere h as

b een a s u b s t an t i al erro r i n t h e ch arg e wh i ch was h arm fu l as a m at t er o f l aw, reg ard l es s

o f wh et h er o b

j ect io n was m ad e h ereu nd er o r n o t .” 1 2

1 1 S ee OCGA § 5 -5 -2 4 (a) (“ Ex cep t as o th erwi se p ro v i d ed i n th i s Co de s ect i o n,

i n al l ci v i l cas es

, n o p art y m ay co m p l a i n o f th e g i v i n g o r t h e fai lu re t o g i v e an

i n s t ru ct i o n t o th e ju ry u n l es s h e o b ject s t heret o b efo re t h e ju r y r et u rn s i t s v erd i ct

,

s t at i n g d i s ti n ct l y t h e m at ter t o wh i ch h e o bject s an d t h e gro u n d s o f h i s o b ject i o n.

Op p o rt u n i t y s h a l l b e gi v en t o m ak e t h e o b ject i o n o u t o f th e h eari n g o f t h e ju ry

. Ob ject i on n eed n o t b e m ad e wi t h t he p art i cu l ari t y fo rm erl y req ui red o f as s i g n m en t s

o f erro r an d n eed o n l y b e as reas o n ab l y d efi n i t e as t h e ci rcu m s t an ces wi l l p erm i t

. Th i s

s u b s ect i o n s h al l n o t ap p l y i n cri m i n al cas es .”).

1 2 O CGA § 5 -5 -2 4 (c); s ee Jo n es v. Fo r es t La k e V i l l a ge Ho meo wn er

s As s ’n

, In c.

, 3 04 Ga. A p p . 4 95 , 5 02 (3 ) (6 9 6 SE2 d 4 5 3) (2 0 1 0 ) (“ Un l es s t h e fai l u re t o g i v e

a ch arg e is h arm fu l as a m at t er o f l aw t o t h e ex t en t t h at a g ro s s m i s carri ag e o f ju s t i ce

i s ab o u t to res u l t

, t he ab s en ce o f a wri t t en r e q u e s t t o ch arg e i s a wai v er o f t h e ri g ht

t o co m p l a i n o n ap p eal .” (p u n ct u at i on om i t t ed )). M ak i d o es n o t ci t e t o o r d i s cu ss

OCGA § 5 -5 -2 4 (c), i n s t ead m ak i n g o n l y a b l an ket as s ert i o n t h at t h e t ri al co u rt

co m m i t t ed “ p l ai n erro r,” wh i ch i s t h e t erm u s ed i n OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 8

, ap pl i cab l e to

cr i mi n a l t ri al s

. S

ee OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 8 (b ) (“ F a i l ure t o o b j ect i n acco rd an ce wi th

s u b s ect i o n (a) o f t hi s Co d e sect io n s h al l p recl u d e ap p el l at e rev i ew o f s u ch po rt i o n o f

t h e ju ry ch arg e, u nl es s s u ch p o rt i o n o f t h e ju ry ch arg e co ns t i t u tes p l ai n erro r wh i ch

affect s s u b s t an t i al ri g h t s o f t h e p art i es

. Su ch p l ai n erro r m ay b e co n si d ered o n ap p eal

ev en if i t was n o t bro ug h t to t h e co u rt ’ s at t en t i o n as p ro v i d ed i n s u bs ect i o n (a) o f t h i s

Co d e s ect i on .”); S t a t e v. Kel l y

, 2 9 0 Ga. 2 9

, 3 2 (1 ) (7 18 SE2 d 2 3 2 ) (2 0 1 1 ) (ex p l ai n i n g

t h at OCGA § 1 7-8 -5 8 (b ) o n “ p l ai n erro r” ap p l i es to cri m i n al cas es wh i l e O C G A §

5 -5 -2 4 (c) o n “ s u b s t an ti al erro r” ap p l i es t o ci v i l cas es ).

7A c h arg e co n s ti t u t i n g s u b s t an t ial erro r i s o n e t h at i s h arm fu l as a m a t t e r o f

l aw— i .e.

, “ b l at an tl y

ap p aren t an d p reju d i ci al t o t h e ex t en t

. . . i t rai ses t h e q u es t i o n

o f wh et h er t h e l o si n g p art y h as , t o s om e ex t en t at l eas t , b een d ep ri v ed o f a fai r t ri al

b ecau s e o f i t

, o r a gro ss i n ju s t ice i s ab o u t t o res u l t o r h as res u l t ed d i rect l y at t ri b u t ab l e

t o t h e al l eg ed erro rs .” 1 3 Su ffi ce i t t o s ay

, in s t an ces o f rev ers al u nd er OCGA § 5 -5 -2 4

(c) “ are l ik el y

t o b e v ery , v ery rare.” 1 4 In d eed , g en eral l y s p eak i n g , i f co u ns el

— wh o

are s k i l led an d t rai n ed in t h e law an d wh o h av e p rep ared an d t ri ed t h e cas e— “ fai l to

s e e t h e e r ro r an d en t er an ex cep t i o n as pro v i ded i n s u b s ect i o n s (a) an d (b ), i t i s n ot

1 3 Sm i t h v. No rf

o lk S

. R.R. Co

. , 3 3 7 Ga. Ap p

. 6 0 4, 6 1 2 (2 ) (7 8 8 SE2 d 5 0 8 )

(2 0 1 6) (p u n c t u a t i o n o m i tt ed ); s ee W i l l i a ms v. Ken n ed

y

, 2 4 0 Ga. 1 6 3

, 16 4 (2 ) (2 4 0

SE2 d 5 1 ) ( 1 9 7 7 ) (“ Th e ex cep t i o n t o th e ru l e fo u n d i n [OCGA § 5 -5 -2 4 (c)]

. . . i s

i n ap p l i cab l e u n l es s i t ap p ears t h at t h e erro r co n t en de d i s ‘ b lat an tl y ap p aren t an d

p reju d i ci al ’ an d th at a g ro s s m i s carri ag e o f ju s t i ce at tri b ut ab l e t o i t i s ab o u t t o res u l t .”

(p u n ct u at i o n & ci t at i on s om i t t ed )); Mer cker v. Ab en d

, 2 6 0 G a. Ap p

. 8 3 6

, 8 4 0 (2 ) (5 8 1

SE2 d 3 5 1 ) (2 0 03 ) (“ A ch arg e ‘ h arm fu l as a m at t er of law’ is o n e t hat i s s o bl at an t l y

ap p aren t an d p reju d i ci al t h at i t rai s es t h e q u es t i o n o f wh et h er t he lo si n g p ar t y h a s

b een d ep ri ved o f a f

ai r t ri al b ecau s e o f i t

, o r a g ro s s i n j u s t i ce h as res u lt ed t h at i s

d i rect l y at t ri bu t ab l e t o t he al leg ed erro r.”).

1 4 S h i l l i d a y v. D u na wa

y

, 2 2 0 Ga. Ap p

. 4 0 6

, 4 1 0 (8 ) (4 6 9 SE2 d 4 8 5 ) (1 9 9 6 )

(p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ); a cco r d S ea bo l t v. Ch ees b o ro u g h

, 12 7 Ga. Ap p

. 2 5 4, 2 6 0 (5 )

(1 9 3 SE2 d 2 3 8 ) (1 9 7 2 ); Na t h a n v. Du nca n

, 1 1 3 G a

. Ap p

. 6 3 0

, 6 3 8 (6 ) (1 4 9 SE2 d

3 8 3 ) (1 96 6 ); s ee W

a ll er v. Rymer

, 2 9 3 Ga. Ap p

. 8 3 3, 8 3 6 (1 ) (6 6 8 SE2 d 4 70 ) (2 0 0 8 )

(“ W e h av e h el d t h at i n s tan ces fal l i n g wi t h i n t h e ex cep t io n c ontem pl at ed i n s u b s ect i o n

(c) are v ery rare, an d s h o u l d b e ap p l i ed

, an d ap pel l at e rev i ew p erfo rm ed

, o n l y wh en

i t ap p e a rs t h at a g ro ss i n

j u s t i ce h as res u l ted o r w i l l res u l t fro m t h e al l eg ed erro r.”

(p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed )).

8t o b e reg ard ed as harm fu l.” 1 5 Nev ert h el es s

, i t i s t he d ut y o f t h e t ri al co urt

, wh et h er

req u es t ed o r n o t, to “ g i v e t he ju ry ap p ro p ri at e i n s t ru ct i o n s o n ev ery s ub s tan t i al an d

v i t al i s s u e p res en t ed b y

t h e ev i d en ce, an d o n ev ery t h eo ry o f t h e cas e.” 1 6

Here, t h e i ns t ru ct i o n s g i v en b y t h e t r i a l co urt t rack ed t h e l an g u ag e o f t h e

rel ev an t Co d e s ect i o n s n earl y v erb at i m

. 1 7 Bu t th e “ cen t ral i n q u i ry ” i n an i n fri n g em en t

cas e i s “ wh et h er t h ere i s a ‘ l i k el i h o o d o f co nfu s i o n ’ on t h e p art o f co n s u m ers b et ween

1 5 Na t h a n

, 1 1 3 Ga. Ap p

. at 6 3 8 (6 ); a cco r d Cen t r a l o f Ga

. R .R. Co

. v. Lu t h er

, 1 2 8 Ga. Ap p . 1 7 8 , 1 8 0 (1 ) (1 96 SE2 d 1 4 9 ) (1 9 7 3).

1 6 Al m a s s u d v. Mez q u i t a l

, 3 4 5 Ga. A p p

. 45 6

, 4 5 8 (1 ) (8 11 SE2 d 1 1 0 ) (2 0 1 8 );

s ee Ro b i ns o n v. S t a t e , 2 7 8 Ga. 8 3 6

, 8 3 8 (5 ) n .7 (6 0 7 SE2 d 5 5 9 ) (2 0 0 5) (ci t i n g wi th

ap p ro v al Dav i s & Sh ul m an

, G eo rg i a Pract ice & Pro ced u re, § 2 1 -3

, fo r t h e p ro p o s i t i o n

t h at “ [i ] t i s th e d ut y o f t h e co u rt

, wh et h er req u es t ed o r n o t

, t o g i v e t h e ju ry ap p ro p ri at e

i n s t r u c t i o n s o n ev ery s u b s t an ti al an d v i t al i s s u e pres en t ed b y t he ev i d en ce, an d o n

ev ery t h eo ry o f t h e cas e”); Hi l l v. S t a t e

, 2 37 Ga. 5 2 3, 5 2 4 (3 ) (2 2 8 SE2 d 8 98 ) (1 9 7 6 )

(“ It i s

, of co u rs e, t h e d ut y o f t h e t ri al co u rt

, wh et her req u es t ed o r n o t t o g i v e t h e ju ry

ap p ro p ri at e i n s t ru ct i o n s o n ev ery s ub s t an t i al i s s u e i n t h e cas e wh ich i s rai s ed b y t h e

ev i d en ce[.] ”).

1 7 S e e OCGA § 1 0 -1 -3 7 2 (a) (1 ), (2 ), (3 ), (1 2 ) (“ A p ers o n en g ag es i n a

d ecep t i v e t rad e pract i ce wh en

, in t h e co u rs e o f h i s b u si n es s

, v o cat i o n

, o r o ccu p at i o n,

h e: (1 ) Pas s es o ff go o d s o r s erv i ces as t h o s e o f a n o t her; (2 ) Cau s es l i k el i h o o d o f

co n fu s i o n o r of m i s u n d ers t an d i n g as t o t h e so u rce, s p on s ors h i p

, ap p ro v al

, o r

cert ifi cat i o n o f g o o ds o r s e r v i c e s ; (3 ) Cau s es l i k el i ho o d o f co n fu s i o n o r o f

m i s u n d ers t an d i n g as to affi l i at i o n

, co n n ect i o n

, o r as s o ci at i on w i t h o r cert i fi cat i o n by

an o th er;

. . . o r (1 2 ) En g ag es i n an y o t h er co n d u ct wh i ch s im i l arl y creat es a l i k el i h o o d

o f co n fu si o n o r of m i s u n d ers t an d i n g .”); OCGA § 1 0 -1 -3 7 2 (b ) (“ In o rd er t o p rev ai l

i n an act i o n u nd er t h is p art

, a co m pl ai n an t n eed no t p ro ve co m p et i t i o n b et w een t h e

p art i es o r act u al co n fu s i o n o r m i s u n d ers t an di n g .”).

9t h e n am es a n d s ym b o l s u s ed b y t h e t wo p art i es ,” 1 8 wh i ch i s refl ect ed b y rep eat ed

referen ce t o t h e “ l i k e l i h o o d o f co n fu s i o n ” i n t he s t at u t e i t s el f. 1 9 An d t h e ex t en t to

wh i ch t wo m ark s are co n fu s i n g l y s im i l ar ca n n o t b e as s es s ed “ wi t h o u t co n s id eri n g al l

s ev en fact o rs to en s u re t h at th e d et erm i n at i o n i s m ad e i n li g h t of t he t o tal i t y o f t h e

ci rcu m s t an ces

. ” 2 0

Th u s

, b ecau s e o f t h i s cl ear m an d at e, t h e o m i s si o n fro m t h e ch arg e o f th e s ev en

“ l i k el i h o o d o f co n f

u s i o n ” fact o rs was s o b l at an t l y ap paren t an d preju d ici al t h at i t

rai s es t he q u es ti o n o f w h et h er M ak i was d ep r i ved o f a fai r t ri al

. 2 1 Th e s o l e i s s u e in

1 8 Co r p s Gr p

. v. A f t er b u r n er

, In c.

, 3 3 5 Ga. Ap p

. 1 3 8

, 1 44 (1 ) (7 7 9 SE2 d 3 8 3 )

(2 0 1 5) (p u n ct u at i on o m i t ted ).

1 9 S ee OCGA § 1 0 -1 -3 7 2 (a) (2 ), (3 ), (1 2 ) (q u ot ed s u pr a i n n o t e 1 7 ).

2 0 C o r p s Gr p

. , 33 5 Ga. Ap p. at 1 4 5 (1 ) (p u n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed ) (em p h as i s

s u p p li ed ); a cco r d S

o ver ei gn Mi l i t a r

y H o s p i t a l l er Or der o

f S t. Jo hn o

f Jer u s a l em of

Rh o des & o

f Ma l t a v. Fl a . Pr i o r

y o f Kn i gh t s Ho s p i t a ll er s o f S o ver ei g n Or d er o f S t

. Jo h n o f Jer u s a lem, Kn i

g h t s of Ma l ta

, t h e Ecu men i ca l Or d er

, 7 0 2 F3 d 1 2 79

, 12 9 3 (III)

(B) (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 1 2 ); W

es co Mf g

., In c. v

. T

r o p ica l At tr a ct i o n s of P a lm Bea ch

, In c.

, 8 3 3 F2 d 1 4 8 4 , 1 4 8 8 (II) (C) (1 1 t h Ci r. 1 9 8 7 ).

2 1 Cf

. Fo r d Mo t o r Co

. v. Co n l ey

, 2 9 4 Ga. 5 3 0

, 5 4 1 (2 ) (7 5 7 SE2 d 2 0 ) (2 0 1 4 )

( “ I f t h e erro r al leg ed was n o t m at eri al l y p reju d i ci al

— i f t h e p art y was n o t t h e r e b y

d ep ri v ed o f a fai r t ri al

— t h en t h ere i s n o ju s t i fi cat i on fo r req u i ri n g an o t h er t ri al o f t h e

s am e cas e.”); Mer cker

, 2 6 0 Ga. Ap p. 8 4 1 (2 ) (“ Hav i n g rev i ewed t h e reco rd

, i n cl u d i n g

t h e en t ire ju ry ch arg e, we h o l d t h at t h e om i s s i o n o f t h e ci t ed l an g u ag e was n o t s o

b l at an t l y ap p aren t an d p reju d i ci al t h at i t rai s es t he q u es t i on o f wh et h er [ap p e l l a n t ]

was d ep ri v ed o f a fai r t ri al .”).

10t h i s cas e— wh et h er t here was a l i kel i h o od o f co n fu s i on b e t we en t h e p art i es ’

n am es —was erro neo u s l y p res en t ed b ecau s e t h e i ns t ru ct i o ns were i n co m p l et e, wh i ch

n eces s ari l y h am

p ered t h e j u ry ’ s d el i berat i o n s

. 2 2 Th i s

, i n t urn

, h i n ders o u r an al y s i s o f

t h e ju ry ’ s v erd i ct

. 2 3 Acco rd i n g ly

, al t h o u g h w e are cert ai n l y t ro ub l ed b y t h e fai l u re o f

2 2 Fo s key v. Fo s key

, 2 5 7 Ga. 7 3 6

, 7 3 7 (2 ) (3 6 3 SE2 d 5 4 7 ) (1 9 8 8 ) (“ Rev ers al s

b y reas o n o f erro n eo u s ju ry ch arg es t o wh i ch n o ex cep t i o n s are tak en are g en er al l y

t h o s e in wh i ch (1 ) ‘ t h ere was an erro n eo u s p res en t at i o n o f th e s ol e i s s ue fo r d eci s i o n ’

o r (2 ) ‘ i t i s o f a k in d wh i ch wo u l d h av e b een l i k el y t o i n fl u en ce t h e ju ry ei t h er t o fi n d

ag ai n s t t h e d efen d an t or t o ret u rn a l arg er v erd i ct th an i t m i gh t h av e ot h erwi s e d o n e’

o r (3 ) i t i s ‘ b l at an tl y ap p aren t an d p reju d i ci al t o t h e ex ten t t h at i t rai ses t h e q u es t i o n

o f wh et h er t h e l o si n g p art y h as

, t o s o m e ex t en t at l eas t , b een d ep ri v ed o f a fai r t ri al

b e cau s e o f i t ’ o r (4 ) ‘ a gro s s i n ju s t i ce i s ab o u t to res ul t o r h as res u l t e d d i r e c t l y

at t ri b u t ab l e t o th e al l eg ed erro rs .’ ” (ci t at io n & p un ct u at io n o m i t t ed )); Br o wn v.

Ga r ret t

, 2 6 1 Ga. Ap p

. 8 2 3

, 8 2 6 (1 ) (5 8 4 SE2 d 4 8) (2 00 3 ) (ex p l ai n i n g t h at

“ s u b s t an t i al erro r” o c c u r s wh en “ (1 ) th e so l e i s s u e fo r d eci s io n was erro n eo u s l y

p res en t ed ; (2 ) t h e erro r was l i k el y t o i nfl u en ce t he j u ry t o fi n d ag ai n s t t h e d efen d an t

o r ret u rn a l arg er v erd i ct ; (3 ) t h e erro r was s o b l at an t l y ap p aren t an d preju d ici al t h at

i t r a i s e s t h e q u es t i o n wh et her t h e l os i n g p art y recei v ed a fai r t ri al ; o r (4 ) a g ro ss

i n ju s ti ce res ul ted , d i rect l y

at t ri b u t ab l e t o t he erro r”).

2 3 S ee Co rp s

. G r

p

. , 3 3 5 Ga. A p p

. at 1 4 5 ( 1 ) (“ In p erfo rm i n g o u r rev i ew o f

wh et h er t h ere ex i s t s a l i k el i h o o d o f co ns u m er co n fu s i o n i n a t rad em ark i n fri n g em en t

cas e u n d er t h e L an h am Act

, t h i s Co u rt m u s t co n s i d er an d ev al u at e t h e ev i d en ce

s u p p ort i n g each o f th e [s ev en ] fact o rs an d co n s i d er t h e wei gh t t o be acco rd ed t o each

o f t h e fact o rs u n d er t h e to t al i t y o f t h e ci rcu m s t an ces .”); s ee al s o S o ver ei g n Mi l i t a r

y

Ho s pi t a ll er

, 7 0 2 F3 d at 1 2 9 4 (III) (B) (“ [W ] h en a d i s t ri ct co u rt co m p l et el y d i s reg ard s

t h e pro p er [s ev en -fact o r] an al y s i s i n m ak in g i t s det erm in at i o n o f co n fu si on

, we m ay

v a c a t e i t s ru l i n g an d rem an d fo r co n s i derat i o n o f th e cl ai m u s in g t h e p ro p e r

fram ewo rk . “ (p u nct u at i on om i t t ed )); W es co Mf g

. , 8 3 3 F2 d at 1 4 8 9 (II) (C) (“ [T] h e

d i s t ri ct co u rt co m

p let el y d i sreg ard ed t h e p ro p er [s ev en -fact o r] an al y s is , an d we are

l eft wi t h an i n s u ffi ci en t bas is fo r d et erm i n i ng w h et h er it s fi n d i n g t h at “ Su rfari ” i s n ot

11t ri al co u n s el t o req u es t t h i s ad d i t i o n al i n s t ru ct i o n o r ot h erwi s e n o t i ce i t s om i s s i o n

, 2 4

we m u s t rev ers e an d o rd er t h at a n ew t ri al b e co n d uct ed b ecau se t h e erro r in t h i s cas e

was h arm fu l as a m at t er o f l aw. 2 5

co n fu s i n g l y

s i m i l ar t o “ Su n Fari ” i s cl earl y erro n eo us .”).

2 4 W e can read i l y d i s t i n g u i s h t h i s cas e fro m t h e ci rcu m s t an ces i n M o o d y v.

Dykes , 2 6 9 Ga. 2 1 7 (4 9 6 SE2 d 9 0 7 ) (1 9 98 ), wh i ch REEA rep eat ed l y d i s cu s s es an d

ci t es

. In t h at cas e

, ou r Su p rem e Co urt co n cl u d ed t h at co u ns el i n du ced t h e

co m p l ai n ed -o f erro r o r acq u i es ced i n t h e i n s tru ct i on s g i v en b y t h e t ri al co u rt b ecau s e

t h e ap pel l an t ch al l en ged t h e i n cl u s i on o f al leg ed l y erro n eo u s i n st ru ct io n s, n o t t h e

o mi ss i o n o f a ch arg e t h at

, b y al l i n d i cat io n s i n t h e r e c o rd

, was n ev er co n si dered by

an y p art y o r t h e co u rt fo r i n cl u s i o n i n t h e i n s tru ct i on s

. Id

. at 2 20 (3 ) (“ Th es e fact s

co m p el t h e co n cl u s i o n t h at t h e [ap p el l an t s ] ex p res s l y acq u ies ced i n b o t h t h e co urt ’ s

i n s t ru c t i o n o n w o rl d l y ci rcu m s t an ces an d i n t h e ju ry ’ s co n s i d erat i o n o f t h em .”

(fo o t no t es o m i t t ed )); s ee Ir vi n v. Ol i ver

, 2 2 3 G a. 1 9 3

, 1 96 (2 ) (1 5 4 SE2 d 2 1 7 ) (1 9 6 7 )

(“ W e co n s t ru e [OCGA § 5 -5 -2 4 (c)] t o refer on l y t o t h e fai l u re t o m ak e ob ject i o n to

t h e ch arg e, an d no t t o t h os e i n s t an ces wh ere t h e g i v i n g o f an i n st ru ct io n

, o r t h e fai l u re

t o g i v e an i n s tru ct i on

, i s i n d u ced b y co u n sel fo r t h e co m p l ai n i n g p art y d u ri n g t h e

co u rs e o f t h e t ri al

, o r s p eci fi cal l y acq u i es ced i n by co u n sel

. It i s a l w ay s t h e d u t y o f

co u ns el , as o ffi cers o f t h e co urt , t o ai d t h e t ri al ju d g e i n p res en t i n g t h e i s s u es t o t h e

ju ry

, an d i t s h o u l d n ev er b e t hei r p urp o s e t o m i s l ead t h e ju d g e i n an y s t at em en t m ad e

i n reg ard t o t h e i s s u es i n v ol ved i n t h e cas e, o r t he l aw.”). Cf

. Da n iel s v. S t at e

, 3 0 6 Ga.

Ap p

. 5 77

, 5 8 3 (3 ) (7 0 3 SE2 d 4 1 ) (2 0 10 ) (ap p el l an t wai v ed i s su e o f t ri al co u rt ’ s

fai l u re to ch arg e t he d efi n i t io n o f “ at t em p t ” wh en ap p el l an t d i d n o t req u es t t h e ch arg e

an d act u al l y

o p p o s ed t h e St at e’ s req u es t t h at t h e co u rt d efi n e “ at t em p t ” an d d i d n ot

o b ject wh en t h e St at e wi t h d rew i t s req u es t).

2 5 Cf

. Am. As s ’n o

f Ca b Co s

., In c. v. Pa r ha m

, 2 9 1 Ga. Ap p

. 3 3, 38 (3 ) (b ) (6 6 1

S E2 d 1 6 1 ) (2 0 0 8 ) (“ W hen an i n s tru ct i o n im p o s es an erro neo u sl y h ig h b u rd en o f

p ro o f o n a ci v i l p l ai n ti ff, t hereb y s h i ft i n g t h at b u rd en o n a p ri m ary i s s u e, a n ew t ri al

i s t h e o n l y rem ed y

, ev en i f t he p l ai n t i ff o b t ai n ed a ju d g m en t at t he p rev i o us t ri al

. W e

co n cl u d e t h at t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s i n s t ru ct i o n i m p o s i n g a ‘ cl ear an d co n v i nci n g ’ s t an d ard

122

. Bas ed o n o u r d eci s i o n i n Di v i s i o n 1

, we n eed n ot ad dres s M ak i ’ s rem ai n i n g

en u m erat i o n s o f erro r.

Ju d g men t r ever sed . Ri ckma n , P. J., a n d

Br o wn

, J., co n cu r

o f p ro o f o n [ap p el lee’ s] ci v i l RICO cl ai m s w as erro n eo u s an d h arm fu l as a m at t er o f

l a w.” (fo o tn o t es om i tt ed )); Pen d a r vi s Co n s t

. Co r

p

. v. Co b b Cn t

y.-Ma r iet t a W

at er

Au t h

. , 2 3 9 G a. Ap p

. 1 4

, 1 7 (2 ) (5 2 0 SE2 d 5 3 0 ) (1 99 9 ) (“ Th e erro r i n t h i s cas e was an

erro r o f l aw an d it w as p reju d i ci al b ecau s e i t wen t t o t h e p ri m ary i s s u e i n t h e cas e, t h e

v al u e o f th e p ro pert y

. Th e ch arg e s h i ft ed t h e b u rd en o f p r o o f o n t h at i s s u e, an d t h e

ju ry award ed o n l y $ 4 26 m o re t h an t h e $ 5 ,4 0 0 so u gh t b y t h e [ap p el l ee]

, l es s t h an

o n e-h al f o f o n e p ercen t o f wh at [ap p el l an t] s o ug h t o v er an d ab o v e t h at am o u n t

. Th u s

t h e ch arg e m ay w el l hav e affect ed t h e o u t co m e of th e cas e an d d ep ri ved [ap p el lan t ]

o f a fai r tri al

. Th e ch arg e was n o t co rrect ed b y t h e ch arg e as a wh o l e. It was sep arat ed

fro m t he earl i er ch arg e g i vi n g t h e [ap p el l ee’ s ] b u r d en an d i t m ay h av e t ak en o n an

i m p o rt an ce i n t h e ju ro rs ’ m i n d s s ep arat e fro m t h e earl i er ch arg e.”).

13