Opinion ID: 456012
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conspiracy to pass off

Text: 103 The jury found that appellants had passed off Fairbanks' valve body kits as Transgo Shift Kits. Appellants contend that this finding was not supported by substantial evidence. A cause of action for passing off arises when one's own creation is sold under the name or mark of another. Smith v. Montoro, 648 F.2d 602, 604 (9th Cir.1981). Express passing off occurs when an enterprise labels goods with a mark identical to that of another enterprise, or otherwise expressly misrepresents that the goods originated with another enterprise. Id. There was substantial evidence of passing off. 104 Appellants also challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's finding that they engaged in a civil conspiracy in order to pass off Fairbanks' copy. A civil conspiracy occurs when the parties have reached a unity of purpose or a common design and understanding, or a meeting of the minds in an unlawful arrangement. American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781, 809-10, 66 S.Ct. 1125, 1138-39, 90 L.Ed. 1575 (1946); see also William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1055 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825, 103 S.Ct. 57, 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982). A conspiracy must be looked at as a whole, and acts which are in themselves legal lose that character when they become constituent elements of an unlawful scheme. See Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690, 699, 82 S.Ct. 1404, 1410, 8 L.Ed.2d 777 (1962). 105 The jury heard evidence that Ajac provided Fairbanks with confidential information concerning Transgo's pricing structure, Transgo's best-selling Shift Kits, and Transgo's primary customers. Fairbanks purchased complete sets of Transgo's Shift Kit line from Ajac in order to copy them. Jacoby told Lupo to leave the name Fairbanks off the package and the instruction sheets. Fairbanks' employees answered the hot line with the word Transactions. The similarity between Transactions and Transgo could suggest to a reasonable mind that the word Transactions was not randomly selected, but resulted from an attempt to confuse rebuilders about the origin of the kits. The jury's findings that appellants passed off Fairbanks' kits and conspired to accomplish this end is supported by substantial evidence. 106 Jacoby contends that it was error to hold him personally liable for Ajac's acts of unfair competition because the jury's finding, that he conspired with Fairbanks to pass off Fairbanks' imitation product, is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. 107 A corporate officer or director is, in general, personally liable for all torts which he authorizes or directs or in which he participates, notwithstanding that he acted as an agent of the corporation and not on his own behalf. Murphy Tugboat Co. v. Shipowners & Merchants Towboat Co., 467 F.Supp. 841, 852 (N.D.Cal.1979), aff'd sub nom. Murphy Tugboat Co. v. Crowley, 658 F.2d 1256 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1018, 102 S.Ct. 1713, 72 L.Ed.2d 135 (1982), quoting Ballantine, Corporations Sec. 112 (rev. ed. 1946). The evidence discussed above amply demonstrates the instrumental role Jacoby played in Fairbanks' success at copying Transgo's Shift Kit and at marketing the imitations as if they were Transgo products.