Opinion ID: 3013826
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Molding the Verdict

Text: Announcing its decision to deny Our circuit has interpreted Atlantic injunctive relief to CNBEC, and instead to & Gulf Stevedores to mean that “a verdict enjoin CNBEC, the District Court must be molded consistently with a jury’s explained that it was “molding the verdict answers to special interrogatories when entered by the jury and entering a verdict there is any view of the case which in favor of CFG and against CNBEC on reconciles the various answers.” McAdam the declaratory judgement claim and on all v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 896 F.2d counterclaims filed by CNBEC against 750, 763 (3d Cir. 1990) (quoting BradfordCFG.” This “molding” is troublesome, White Corp. v. Ernst & Whinney, 872 F.2d given that the jury found that CNBEC had 1153, 1159 (3d Cir. 1989), cert. denied, a protected interest in the mark “Citizens,” 493 U.S. 993 (1989) (emphasis added). and that there was a likelihood of Thus, trial courts must proceed “under a confusion between the marks, constituting constitutional mandate to search for a view CFG’s infringement on CNBEC’s mark. of the case that makes the jury’s answers The District Court had informed the jury consistent.” McAdam, 896 F.2d at 764 during its instructions that “if you find that (quoting United States v. 0.78 Acres of there is a likelihood of confusion caused Land, More or Less, 81 F.R.D. 618, 621 by CFG’s use of the mark Citizens Bank, (E.D.Pa. 1979) aff’d without opinion, 609 then CNBEC will be able to prevent CFG F.2d 504 (3d Cir. 1979). from using the mark Citizens Bank in In our view, the District Court’s those areas where CNBEC has established “molding” in this case has produced a a significant market presence.” collision with the Seventh Amendment. The Supreme Court observed in T h e D is t r ic t C o u r t su b m i t t e d Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. interrogatories to the jury under Fed. R. Ellerman Lines, Ltd., 369 U.S. 355, 364 Civ. P. 49(b) to decide those issues of fact (1962): necessary for a verdict. In response to the Court’s first interrogatory, the jury found Where there is a view of 15 in the affirmative that CNBEC had proven The problem which triggered the that it had used “Citizens” standing alone molding of the verdict originated with the as a trademark. In response to the second Court’s framing of the sixth interrogatory. interrogatory, it found that the mark The Court presided over the lengthy and “Citizens” standing alone was suggestive, complex trial before the jury patiently and arbitrary or fanciful. Skipping to the competently. In framing the sixth fourth interrogatory, the jury also found in interrogatory, however, the District Court the affirmative that a likelihood of erroneously formulated the question in confusion existed between CFG’s mark terms of “injury,” rather than in terms of and CNBEC’s “Citizens” standing-alone monetary damages or unjust enrichment. mark. Taken together, these responses “Injury” is a much broader concept than constituted a finding that CFG had the issues of money damages or unjust infringed on CNBEC’s trademark. enrichment which were properly before the However, in the sixth interrogatory, the jury in this case. An injury is “any wrong jury found that CNBEC had not been or damage done to another, either to his “injured” by the infringement, meaning person, rights, reputation, or property.” that no money damages would be awarded. Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979). Restatement (Second) of Torts § 7 (1965) defines injury as “the invasion of any The critical question in “molding” legally protected interest of another.” The cases such as this is “whether the jury’s jury, however, was not asked to decide the answers in the verdict are necessarily legal rights of the parties; its function was inconsistent with each other.” Loughman to find facts regarding infringement and v. Consol-Penn. Coal Co., 6 F.3d 88, 104 arrive at a verdict regarding CNBEC’s (3d Cir. 1993). Upon review, we hold that claims for monetary relief. The District the jury’s findings in this case were not Court instructed the jury that if it found for inconsistent, and no molding was CNBEC on unfair competition and its necessary to harmonize them. It is trademark infringement claims, it must completely feasible under trademark law determine whether “CFG be required to that a trademark owner may infringe on pay CNBEC the monetary damages that another’s mark, and yet the senior user CNBEC sustained as a consequence of may not suffer any economic damages. CFG’s wrongful acts.” The Court defined The “molding” in this case only became actual damages as meaning “the amount of necessary when the District Court decided money that will reasonably and fairly that despite the jury’s finding of compensate CNBEC for an injury you find infringement by CFG over CNBEC’s was caused by CFG’s use of the mark senior rights, it would still grant ‘Citizen’s Bank.’” Pursuant to its jury declaratory judgment in favor of CFG, instructions, the Court should have molded thereby allowing CFG to use its registered the jury verdict, as it may now be required, trademark in CNBEC’s market area. to reflect the sixth interrogatory to the jury 16 as though it were framed in terms of turn to the District Court’s ruling on money damages and unjust enrichment CNBEC’s motion for a permanent rather than “injury.” injunction. We have clearly held that Several days after the jury returned “trademark infringement amounts to its verdict, the District Court turned to irreparable injury as a matter of law.” CNBEC 's motion for a permanent Gucci Am., Inc. v. Daffy’s, Inc., 354 F.3d injunction to enjoin CFG from offering or 228, 237 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting S & R advertising retail banking services under Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc., 968 F.2d the mark Citizens Bank in CNBEC's 371, 378 (3d Cir. 1992)). Therefore, the claimed market area. The judge apparently jury’s finding of “no injury” must be had received memoranda on the issue, but limited to the context of economic took no new testimony, evidence or oral damages. The jury verdict may not be argument. Without citing any authority used to supplant the principle that CFG’s except the factors set forth in Restatement infringement constitutes a legal injury to (Third) of Unfair Competition § 35, the