Days Inns Worldwide, Inc. v. Lincoln Park Hotels, Inc., No. 06 C 2960, 2007 WL 551570 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2007) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.)
Judge Der-Yeghiayan granted plaintiff summary judgment on its trademark infringement and Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("IDTPA") claims, among others. Plaintiff owns various marks relating to its Days Inn chain (the "Days Inn Marks"). Plaintiff licensed defendants Lincoln Park Hotels, Inc. and Richard Erlich (collectively "LPH") to use the Days Inn Marks in connection with the operation of a hotel in Chicago’s Lincoln Park neighborhood. In 2005, LPH sold the hotel to defendant Gold Coast Investors ("GCI") without informing plaintiff, in violation of the parties’ license agreement. GCI continued operating the hotel using the Days Inn Marks without licensing the rights to the marks from plaintiff. As a result, plaintiff brought the instant action against defendants alleging that, among other things, GCI infringed plaintiff’s Days Inn Marks and LPH contributorily infringed plaintiff’s Days Inn Marks by selling the hotel to GCI with the knowledge that GCI intended to continue using the Days Inn Marks and without informing plaintiff of the sale or removing the Days Inn Marks from the hotel, as required in the parties’ license agreement.
Defendants did not challenge plaintiff’s evidence on its trademark, IDTPA or other related state law claims and, it appears, did not fully respond to plaintiff’s Local Rule 56.1 statement. In fact, defendants’ only defense was LPH’s argument that they were not liable because the alleged infringement and related acts occurred after LPH sold the hotel to GCI. But the Court denied this defense because LPH did not challenge plaintiff’s statement of fact paragraph 37 which stated that at the time of sale LPH was aware that GCI intended to operate the hotel using the Days Inn Marks. Paragraph 37 also stated that LPH neither removed the Days Inn Marks from the hotel themselves, nor obligated GCI to remove them. The Court held that LPH’s actions as detailed in, at least, paragraph 37 "far surpass[ed]" the "willful blindness standard of contributory infringement.
Practice tip: Make sure that you fully respond to each issue raised in every paragraph of your opponent’s Local Rule 56.1 statements of material fact.