Opinion ID: 222293
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Jaso’s Unjust Enrichment Claim

Text: Jaso’s proposed second amended complaint included a claim for unjust enrichment under Texas law. Jaso has waived any challenge to the district court’s judgment with respect to this claim, however, by failing to address it on appeal. See, e.g., Thibault, 612 F.3d at 849 n.7. 10 Other circuits that have addressed laches in the context of a Lanham Act claim have determined that a delay beyond the limitations period creates the presumption that laches applies, which the purported owner of the mark must rebut. See Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. Nutrition Now, Inc., 304 F.3d 829, 837 (9th Cir. 2002) (collecting cases); see also 6 J. THOMAS MCCARTHY, MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS & UNFAIR COMPETITION, § 31:23 at 31-75–31-78 (4th ed. 2011). Generally, this court requires the defendant to prove all three elements of the laches defense, and Defendants have not argued otherwise. Nor do our cases applying laches in the context of a Lanham Act violation appear to have applied the same presumption as other circuits. See Elvis Presley Enters., 141 F.3d at 205–06 (stating that laches defense was unavailable because, even if plaintiff’s delay in bringing Lanham Act claim was inexcusable, defendants failed to prove undue prejudice from the delay). 11 Jaso’s proposed second amended complaint also alleged a violation of Texas’s unfair competition law. Jaso has waived this claim by failing to discuss it on appeal. See, e.g., Thibault v. Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc., 612 F.3d 843, 849 n.7 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding that breach of contract claim that was not presented as an issue on appeal was waived). Furthermore, because this claim is based on Coca Cola’s filing of the “Always” copyright, this claim is facially barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to such a claim. See Daboub v. Gibbons, 42 F.3d 285, 290–91 (5th Cir. 1995) (stating that a Texas state law claim for unfair competition was time barred “as the underlying alleged wrongful act took place [seventeen years before filing suit], when [defendant] acquired a copyright and property interest in the song”). 16 Case: 10-20786 Document: 00511557863 Page: 17 Date Filed: 08/01/2011 No. 10-20786