Pignons S.A. de Mecanique v. Polaroid Corporation

Summary

The First Circuit affirmed dismissal of Pignons S.A. de Mecanique's claims against Polaroid Corporation concerning allegedly false advertising under the Lanham Act and Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A. The court held that collateral estoppel barred relitigation of whether Polaroid's similar advertising was likely to injure Pignons, because that issue had been fully litigated in the prior action and the newer advertisements and products were not materially different. The court also held that any other objections to summary judgment had been waived on appeal.

Holdings

1. Because the prior judgment determined, after Pignons had a fair opportunity to litigate, that Pignons had not established a likelihood of damage from Polaroid's allegedly false claims, and because the later advertisements and products were not materially different, collateral estoppel barred Pignons from relitigating whether similar advertising was likely to injure it.
2. A party that had a fair opportunity to litigate an issue may not reopen it merely by offering new theories, evidence, or arguments that could have been presented in the first action.
3. Pignons waived any objection to summary judgment on its remaining claims by failing to raise the objection in its initial appellate brief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether collateral estoppel barred Pignons from relitigating the likelihood-of-injury element of its Lanham Act false-advertising claim based on allegedly new advertisements and products.
2. Whether Pignons could avoid issue preclusion by presenting new theories, evidence, and arguments that could have been presented in the prior action.
3. Whether Pignons waived objections to summary judgment on its remaining claims by failing to raise them in its initial appellate brief.

Disposition

affirmed