1	

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

BARRINGTON MUSIC PRODUCTS, ) 

INC., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 Vs. ) Cause No. 3:16-cv-06-RLM 

 ) 

MUSIC & ARTS CENTER; GUITAR ) 

CENTER STORES, INC.; EASTMAN ) 

MUSIC COMPANY and WOODWIND ) 

& BRASSWIND, INC., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

ORDER AND OPINION 

 Barrington Music Products, Inc., sued Music & Arts Centers, 

Guitar Center Stores, Inc., Eastman Music Company, and Woodwind & 

Brasswind, Inc. for trademark infringement. The jury found for 

defendants Music & Arts Centers, Eastman Music, and Woodwind & 

Brasswind, but found for Barrington with respect to Guitar Center 

Stores. The jury awarded damages, reflecting revenue from sales of the 

infringing VENTUS products, of $3,228. Barrington asks the court, 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a), to amend the damages 

award to $4,947,200, which Barrington describes as the amount shown 

by the undisputed evidence. Alternatively, Barrington seeks a new trial. 

The court disagrees with Barrington and finds no reason to disturb the 

verdict. 
2	

 A court can alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(a) if the 

verdict is against the weight of the evidence, Pickett v. Sheridan Health 

Care Ctr., 610 F.3d 434, 440 (7th Cir. 2010), or when undisputed 

evidence shows the verdict was incorrect on the amount of damages. 

Liriano v. Hobart Corp., 170 F.3d 264, 272-273 (2d Cir. 1999). The 

verdict must stand unless, when the trial record is viewed as favorably as 

reasonably possible to the non-movant, there’s no rational connection 

between the evidence and the damage award. Northern Indiana Gun & 

Outdoor Shows, Inc. v. Hedman, 111 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 1022 (N.D. Ind. 

2000). 

 The jury appears to have based its damages award on Barrington’s 

Exhibit 32, which shows Guitar Center’s revenue from its sales of 

VENTUS products to have been $3,228 – the precise amount of the jury’s 

verdict. Barrington says that’s the wrong number, and points to its 

testimony to the effect that Guitar Center’s gross revenue from the sale of 

VENTUS products from 2011 through trial was $4,947,200. 

 Barrington’s confusion flows from its having used the term “Guitar 

Center” in different ways at trial. All four defendants were related to 

Guitar Center, Inc. Guitar Center, Inc. owned Music & Arts and 

Woodwind & Brasswind (though they operated independently of each 

other); Eastman manufactured the products for the other defendants. At 

times during the trial, Barrington’s counsel used “Guitar Center” as 

Guitar Center Writ Large: Guitar Center, Inc., and its subsidiaries (and 
3	

maybe Eastman, too, though it was rarely clear), and referred to Music & 

Arts and Woodwind & Brasswind as among “Guitar Center’s different 

main brands,” “channels,” and “divisions.” Tr. at 395-396. 

 The dual meaning of “Guitar Center” as used by Barrington at trial 

led to significant miscommunication during the cross examination of 

Amanda Schoemer, who testified that although her paycheck came from 

Guitar Center Inc., she worked for Music & Arts when the infringing 

name was devised and she had no contact with Guitar Center personnel. 

That miscommunication led to the following exchange at sidebar: 

THE COURT: You've asked four questions about Guitar 

Center since I -- you haven't laid a foundation yet. 

MR. QUINN: Okay. Your Honor, she testified that Music & 

Arts is Guitar Center. 

THE COURT: No, she testified that it's part of Guitar Center 

and she didn't do anything with respect to anything other than 

Music & Arts and that they were separate, that they were run 

pretty independently, excuse me. You sued them separately. 

MR. QUINN: Well, that the brands were run separately. Yes, I 

understand. But, she testified that Guitar Center Stores, Inc., a 

defendant in this case is the sole owner and that Music & Arts is 

just a division of that company. 

THE COURT: That she is familiar with that division. You're 

going beyond her knowledge, so I'm going to sustain it. 

Tr. at 409-410. 

 This dual use of the term “Guitar Center” seems to have given rise 

to this motion. Barrington argues that Music & Arts and Woodwind & 

Brasswind were simply organizational components of the great Guitar 

Center, Inc., so their profits are Guitar Center’s profits. But that isn’t 

how the case was brought, or how the jury could have decided it. Music 

& Arts and Brasswind & Woodwind (and Eastman Music, for that matter) 
4	

were sued as separate defendants. The jury instructions referred to 

“defendants” in the plural, and included an instruction virtually 

commanding separate consideration for each named defendant: 

Each defendant bears the burden of proving the direct 

expenses that it incurred in producing, marketing, and selling the 

products at issue. If a defendant fails to prove such direct 

expenses, you must find the amount of its gross revenues as the 

amount of profits. 

(Dkt. No. 134, Instruction 14). 

The verdict form treated each named defendant separately. (Dkt. 

No. 131). No reasonable jury could think that after finding Music & Arts 

and Woodwind & Brasswind not liable, it was to award the profits of 

those defendants to the separately named Guitar Center, Inc. 

 Barrington notes that neither side argued the $3,228 figure to the 

jury. Rather than throw the verdict into question, that makes the jury’s 

performance more impressive. The jury worked through the exhibits to 

find Guitar Center Inc.’s total sales from the VENTUS products, and 

found it on the fourth line of an exhibit that no one highlighted for the 

jury. 

 This jury did exactly what it was supposed to do under the 

instructions and the verdict form: decide who violated the trademark and 

award to Barrington that defendant’s total sales from the VENTUS 

products. The answer to the first question it was to decide was Guitar 

Center, Inc., but not Music & Arts Centers or Eastman Music or 

Woodwind & Brasswind, who infringed the trademark. The answer to the 
5	

second question was the sales by Guitar Center, Inc., but not those of 

Music & Arts Centers or Eastman Music or Woodwind & Brasswind. The 

jury’s verdict was impeccable. 

 The court DENIES Barrington Music Products, Inc.’s motion to 

amend the judgment (Dkt. No. 137). 

 SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: August 6, 2018 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

 Robert L. Miller, Jr., Judge 

 United States District Judge