Opinion ID: 2048270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Deceptive Trade Practice Claim

Text: Selection Research also argues, in the language of its operative petition, that the service presently being provided by the Defendants to its customers is significantly identical to the service provided by [Selection Research] and the Defendants are therefore, in the course of their business, causing likelihood of confusion and misunderstanding.... Nebraska's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act is found at Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 87-301 et seq. (Reissue 1987 & Cum. Supp.1988). Section 87-302 (Reissue 1987) of that act provides in relevant part, (a) A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of his business, vocation, or occupation, he: .... (2) Causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services; (3) Causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, another. Section 87-303(a) (Reissue 1987) of the act provides, among other things, that one likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice may be granted an injunction notwithstanding the absence of proof of monetary damage or intent to deceive. To resolve this case it is sufficient to note that Selection Research's deceptive trade practice action clearly is not supported in the record. The only assertion of record directed to confusion in the marketplace between Selection Research's products and Measurement Systems' products is Hoeltke's compound hearsay statement that he has heard that others at Selection Research have heard that unnamed entities in the marketplace have called asking what is going on.