Alfwear, Inc. v. KulKote, LLC; Alfa Adhesives, Inc.; and Darren Gilmore

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Utah denies Defendants’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) in a trademark dispute between Alfwear, Inc. and KulKote, LLC, Alfa Adhesives, Inc., and Darren Gilmore. The jury found trademark infringement, willfulness, and unfair competition but awarded no damages. The court concludes that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s findings, including on likelihood of confusion and intent, and declines to disturb the verdict.

Holdings

1. A Rule 50(b) movant may assert only the same grounds for judgment as a matter of law that were raised in the pre-deliberation Rule 50(a) motion, although Rule 50 does not require technical precision and arguments are liberally construed when the trial court was adequately apprised of the movant's position.
2. The evidence provided a legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find a likelihood of consumer confusion between Alfwear's KÜHL mark and Defendants' KülKōte mark.
3. The jury had a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find that Defendants willfully infringed Alfwear's trademarks.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because no reasonable jury could find a likelihood of confusion between the KÜHL and KülKōte marks.
2. Whether Defendants' challenges to particular likelihood-of-confusion issues were waived because they were not stated with sufficient certainty in the Rule 50(a) motion.
3. Whether Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the jury's finding of willful trademark infringement.
4. Whether the evidence provided a legally sufficient basis for the jury's infringement and willfulness verdicts.

Disposition

other