Opinion ID: 2816581
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendants’ Claim to Judgment as a Matter of Law

Text: Defendants argue in their opening appellate brief that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a finding of likelihood of confusion, which is necessary to a claim of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N2G Distrib., Inc., 763 F.3d 524, 534 (6th Cir. 2014). Defendants, however, waived any claim for judgment as a matter of law on these grounds by failing to raise it before the district court during trial. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a)(2) provides that “[a] motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury.” (emphasis added). If the motion is timely made, then a party may renew it after the verdict pursuant to Rule 50(b). Failure to make the motion prior to the submission of the case to the jury constitutes a waiver of the right to raise the issue after the jury has returned its verdict. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b); Maxwell v. Dodd, 662 F.3d 418, 420-21 (6th Cir. 2011); Libbey-Owens-Ford Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 9 F.3d 422, 426 (6th Cir. 1993) (“A party who has failed to move for a directed verdict cannot request the district court to rule on the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a verdict against him nor can he raise this issue on appeal.”). Here, Defendants never moved for judgment as a matter of law on the likelihood of confusion issue. At the close of Plaintiff’s case-in-chief, they did make Rule 50(a) motions on four other issues: Plaintiff’s claim for an accounting of profits; Plaintiff’s damages claim based on corrective advertising costs; Plaintiff’s MCPA claim; and Plaintiff’s claim against Weld in his individual capacity. None of Defendants’ arguments in support of these motions alluded to the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the likelihood of confusion with Plaintiff’s marks. Even where a party has made some reference to an issue in a Rule 50(a) motion that it later invokes as the basis for its renewed motion under Rule 50(b), the issue is not preserved if it was not raised in a sufficiently substantial way in the earlier motion. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., 9 F.3d at 425-27. In Libbey, we affirmed a district court’s refusal to consider a Rule 50(b) motion on grounds that were not presented in a substantial way prior to the close of all the evidence. Id. This Court explained: Nos. 14-1357/1608/1939 CFE Racing Products v. BMF Wheels, et al. Page 10 This waiver rule serves to protect litigants’ Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury. In addition, the rule discourages courts from reweighing the evidence simply because they feel that the jury could have reached another result. Further, the rule serves to prevent “tactical victories at the expense of substantive interests.” Requiring a motion for directed verdict prior to a motion for j.n.o.v. enables the defending party to cure defects in his proofs. Id. at 426 (citations omitted); see also Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 402 n.4 (2006) (explaining that permitting a party to request judgment entered on its behalf despite failure to make a Rule 50(a) motion would raise Seventh Amendment concerns). Defendants’ briefing does not point to any instance prior to submission of the case to the jury where they presented the district court with substantial legal argument about the sufficiency of the evidence on the likelihood of confusion. Our own review of the record does not reveal any such motion. In their reply brief, Defendants argue that the appeal is proper under Federal Rule of Evidence 103(b) and Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440 (2000), recasting their claim for judgment as a matter of law as seeking a remedy for the asserted evidentiary errors. Rule 103(b) provides that “[o]nce the court rules definitively on the record—either before or at trial—a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.” Fed. R. Evid. 103(b). In Weisgram, the Supreme Court held that courts of appeal could direct entry of judgment for a party on the basis of evidentiary errors where, “on excision of testimony erroneously admitted, there remains insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict.” 528 U.S. at 457. Thus, Weisgram addressed whether a court of appeals should consider the sufficiency of the evidence actually presented to the jury or the evidence at trial after excising the evidence erroneously admitted. Id. at 452-53. The Court never questioned Rule 50’s requirement that a party present its motion to the court before submission of the case to the jury in order to preserve its argument that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See id. at 45257. Moreover, following Weisgram, the Supreme Court subsequently reaffirmed the mandatory nature of Rule 50’s procedural requirements in Unitherm, where it held that failure to renew a motion for judgment as a matter of law following the jury verdict “forecloses [a party’s] challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.” 546 U.S. at 404. Nos. 14-1357/1608/1939 CFE Racing Products v. BMF Wheels, et al. Page 11 Defendants’ attempt to salvage their claim for judgment as a matter of law is therefore unavailing. Because Defendants failed to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on the likelihood of confusion between the marks before the submission of the case to the jury, their claim for judgment as a matter of law pursuant Rule 50 is foreclosed.