Court Allows One Reference to Defendants' Religion to Avoid Jury Bias

Posted on December 4, 2009 by R. David Donoghue

Lorilland Tobacco Co. v. Elston Self Service Wholesale Grocs., Inc., Case No. 03 C 4753, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 21, 2009) (Gottschall, J.).

Judge Gottschall ruled upon the parties’ motions in limine in this Lanham Act case regarding the alleged sale of counterfeit Newport cigarettes. Of particular interest, the Court denied in part plaintiff’s motion to exclude evidence of the religious belief of any party or witness. In order to ensure that “no anti-Muslim prejudice infect[ed] the jury’s deliberation," the Court allowed one defendant to state once that he was a Christian. The Court also noted that it would reconsider its order if plaintiff suggested a reasonable way for the Court to resolve the issue in voir dire.

The Court also agreed to read the jury a statement regarding the fact that the health of one defendant prevented his attendance at trial and that the jury should not hold his absence against him or consider it in their deliberations.

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

Tags: , , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Trackbacks
  • Share Link

Likelihood of Confusion Same for Deceptive Trade Practices & Trademarks

Posted on September 28, 2009 by R. David Donoghue

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Elston Self Serv. Wholesale Grocs., Inc., No. 03 C 4753, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jun. 9, 2009) (Gottschall, J.).

Judge Gottschall granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment regarding plaintiff’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud* claims regarding sales of recirculated Newport cigarettes. Plaintiff claimed that defendants purchased cigarettes from retailers to take advantage of plaintiff’s discount program and resold those recirculated cigarettes to other entities, sometimes recurring a second relate for those purchases. Plaintiff further alleged that some of the recirculated cigarettes were old and stale. But the Court held that the accrued recirculation and sale of record that cigarettes could not make a Deceptive Practices Act claim because of the likelihood of confusion requirement. Like in the trademark law, likelihood of confusion as to origin. But plaintiff did not allege that there was any common confusion regarding that plaintiff was the source of the cigarettes. Confusion as to whether the cigarettes were first or second hand was irrelevant.

* This post does not address the fraud claims.

 

Tags: , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Trackbacks
  • Share Link