Chicago IP Attorney & Lawyer : R. David Donoghue : Chicago IP Litigation Blog

Bobak Sausage Co. v. A & J Seven Bridges, Inc., No. 07 C 4718 Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 31, 2011) (Dow, J.).

After entering judgment for defendants, the Court granted defendants' unopposed bill of costs in this trademark case. The opinion is fairly vanilla, but it answers one question I get frequently: How much do you have to break down costs to support your bill of costs? Creating too much detail from summary bills can quickly eclipse the value of the average bill of costs. The Court answered that question as follows, with useful case cites:
 

Under Section 1920(4), the prevailing party is "not required to submit a bill of costs containing a description so detailed as to make it impossible economically to recover photocopying costs." Northbrook Excess & Surplus Ins. Co. v. Proctor & Gamble, 924 F.2d 633, 643 (7th Cir. 1991). Instead, the prevailing party need only provide the best breakdown obtainable from the records. See id.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Bobak Sausage Co. v. A & J Seven Bridges, Inc. d/b/a Bobak's Signature Events, No. 07 C 4718, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 26, 2010) (Dow, Jr.).

Judge Dow denied without prejudice defendants' Fed. R. Evid. 702 motion to exclude plaintiff's trademark survey expert in this Lanham Act case involving plaintiff's Bobak marks. Plaintiff's eight question survey was flawed. The survey's relevant universe was too broad. 

Metropolitan Chicago residents were surveyed, not just those in the market for the parties' products. The survey was also underinclusive because it excluded businesses, a large percentage of defendants' business. Additionally, the survey asked leading questions, and did not use the parties' visual marks. Finally, the survey used only minimal controls. 

Despite having identified technical defects in the survey, the Court did not exclude the survey. Although the defects substantially limited the usefulness of the survey, the survey was not one of the "rare" ones that are "completely unhelpful" to the trier of fact. But the Court stressed that its decision was preliminary. And the Court was more comfortable allowing a flawed survey because it was the trier of fact. 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Bobak Sausage Co. v. Bobak Orland Park, Inc., No. 06 C 4747, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 3, 2008) (Kennelly, J.).*

Judge Kennelly denied without prejudice plaintiff Bobak Sausage Co.'s ("Bobak") motion to compel defendant's interest in Bobak Fifty Third Street LLC (“Bobak 53”). Bobak makes and sells meat products and operates a related restaurant in Chicago.  Bobak's founder, Frank Bobak, transferred ownership of Bobak's to his sons.  In early 2006, Bobak's reorganized, leaving two of the sons owning Bobak's and a third, defendant, owning a grocery store that Bobak's had been building.  All of the brothers maintained as interest in Bobak 53. As part of the reorganization, Bobak's granted two entities rights to use Bobak's trademarks at retail locations for a six month period.  After the six month period ended, Bobak's filed suit against defendants (including the third son and the licensed retail locations) for, among other things, trademark infringement based upon the continued use of the Bobak's marks.  The parties settled that dispute based at least in part upon a stipulated permanent injunction, which the Court entered, setting various limits on what marks each defendant could use, requirements that the defendants remove and change their signage and requirements that defendants use disclaimers that they were not affiliated with Bobak's.  The Court later held certain defendants in contempt for violating the permanent injunction and entered a remedial fine of $150,000. When defendants failed to pay the fine, the Court added interest to it.

Because defendants continue not to pay the fine, Bobak moved the Court for an order compelling the transfer of defendant's interest in Bobak 53 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a) and 70. The Court, however, held that Rule 70 only allows for enforcement of money judgment in very narrow circumstances, circumstances that were not yet met in this case.

Rule 69(a) allows for a writ of execution in accord with the rules of the state where the court is located, Illinois in this case. Illinois law says that the debtor's property delivered for repayment is to be sold by the sheriff at public auction. But because defendant's interest in Bobak 53 is relatively non-liquid – plaintiffs, the other owners of Bobak 53, retain substantial sale over any sale or subsequent sale. The restrictions on ownership and sale of Bobak 53 make a public sale impractical. But the Court could order that any distributions be paid to plaintiff. The Court, therefore, denied plaintiff's motion without prejudice. But the Court also ordered defendant to show cause why the Court should not appoint a receiver for defendant's interest in Bobak 53 and enjoin the state court proceedings regarding Bobak 53.

* Click here for more on this case in the Blog's archives.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Bobak Sausage Co. v. Bobak Orland Park, Inc., No. 06 C 4747, 2007 WL 846505 (N.D. Ill. Jar. 19, 2007) (Kennelly, J.).

After an evidentiary hearing, Judge Kennelly held defendants in contempt for violating the stipulated permanent injunction entered by the Court and ordered defendants to comply with the injunction within three weeks or face daily fines.  Plaintiff Bobak Sausage Co. ("Bobak's") makes and sells meat products and operates a related restaurant in Chicago.  Bobak's founder, Frank Bobak, transferred ownership of Bobak's to his sons.  In early 2006, Bobak's reorganized, which led to two of the sons owning Bobak's and a third owning a grocery store that Bobak's had been building.  As part of the reorganization, Bobak's granted two entities rights to use Bobak's trademarks at retail locations for a six month period.  After the six month period ended, Bobak's filed suit against defendants (including the third son and the licensed retail locations) for, among other things, trademark infringement based upon the continued use of the Bobak's marks.  The parties settled that dispute based at least in part upon a stipulated permanent injunction, which the Court entered, which set various limits on what marks each defendant could use, requirements that the defendants remove and change their signage and requirements that defendants use disclaimers that they were not affiliated with Bobak's. 

But defendants did not  comply with the injunction.  The Court held that defendants did not replace their signage as required.  Additionally, instead of posting permanent signs at entry points to their establishments including disclaimers that the establishment did not sell Bobak's products, defendants placed sheets of paper at exit points which the Court held were intended to suggest that defendants were the "true inheritor of the Bobak tradition" and which only added the disclaimer as an afterthought.  Based upon these findings, the Court gave defendants three weeks to comply with the injunction, including ordering and paying for deposits on new, compliant signage.

Practice tip:  If you agree to an injunction, you must be prepared to abide by it.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link