Opinion ID: 209272
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other False Advertising Claims

Text: Baden argues that, even if Dastar precludes liability based on Molten's innovative language, there was sufficient non-Dastar evidence at trial to independently support the jury's Lanham Act award. The evidence that Baden points to includes Molten's switch to a non-dual cushion design while still advertising their basketballs as containing dual-cushion technology, and Molten's false claims that its basketballs were designed by a prominent Italian designer. We find that Baden did not pursue those false advertising arguments at trial. Regarding Molten's alleged switch, Baden failed to raise a consumer confusion argument in its complaint or the pre-trial order. Thus, Baden did not pursue its switch claims at trial and has therefore waived that argument on appeal. See Eagle v. AT & T Co., 769 F.2d 541, 548 (9th Cir.1985) ([A] theory will be barred if not at least implicitly included in the [pretrial] order.). Furthermore, Baden did not object to the district court's jury instruction, which referred only to the innovation claims. See Final Jury Instructions at 16, Baden Sports, Inc. v. Kabushiki Kaisha Molten, No. 2:06-cv-210, 2007 WL 2790777, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70776 (W.D.Wash. Sep. 25, 2007) (No. 312) (instructing the jury that Molten claimed `dual cushion' basketballs as a Molten innovation and they were not). That failure undermines Baden's argument that it pursued the switch claim at trial. Lastly, Baden argues that the switch became a significant issue at trial. However, much of the testimony that Baden points to supporting that argument makes clear that the purpose of the testimony was to demonstrate that Molten had falsely claimed to be the innovator. See, e.g., Tr. of R. at 254, Baden Sports, Inc. v. Kabushiki Kaisha Molten, 541 F.Supp.2d 1151 (No. 365) (witness stating that the significance of the switch was that it demonstrated that it's not their innovation). Baden similarly failed to pursue its claims based on misrepresentation of the basketball designer. In fact, the district court found that the design issue was not an issue at trial. Order Regarding Baden's Req. for Entry of Final J. and Permanent Inj. and Defs.' Req. for Remedies-Specific Evidentiary Hr'g at 4, Baden Sports, Inc. v. Kabushiki Kaisha Molten, No. 2:06-cv-210, 2007 WL 2790777, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70776 (W.D.Wash. Sept. 25, 2007) (No. 348). Thus, it is evident that Baden pursued only its claim of false designation of authorship at trial. Because that claim is barred by Dastar, we reverse the district court's denial of judgment as a matter of law.