Scholz v. Goudreau

Summary

This case addresses trademark infringement, breach of contract, and abuse of process claims between former members of the rock band BOSTON. The First Circuit affirmed summary judgment on the breach of contract claim because there was no evidence the defendant directed the allegedly improper promotions, and on the abuse of process claim because the plaintiff's motives were stated in the complaint. The court also upheld the denial of attorney's fees under the Lanham Act, finding the case was not "exceptional" under *Octane Fitness*, and affirmed the admission of a promotional music video as commercial speech rather than protected parody.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was proper because Scholz failed to show a genuine issue of material fact that Goudreau personally breached the Settlement Agreement.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion because Goudreau did not impliedly consent to litigating the claim; the evidence was relevant to existing claims.
3. The district court did not err because the jury's finding on Goudreau's counterclaim does not satisfy the damages element of Scholz's claim.
4. Summary judgment was proper because Scholz's litigation was not used for an ulterior purpose; his stated objective was legitimate.
5. The district court did not abuse its discretion because the case was not exceptional under Octane Fitness.
6. The district court did not abuse its discretion because the video was commercial speech and not protected parody, and its probative value was not outweighed by prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Goudreau on Scholz's breach of contract claim.
2. Whether the district court erred in denying Scholz's motions to reinstate his breach of contract claim.
3. Whether the district court erred in denying Scholz's motion for entry of judgment on his breach of contract claim.
4. Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Scholz on Goudreau's abuse of process claim.
5. Whether the district court erred in denying Goudreau's motion for attorney's fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
6. Whether the district court erred in admitting the EATA pop-up video into evidence.

Disposition

affirmed