Med S

Health Plans, LLC v. Life of the S. Ins. Co., No. 4:07-CV-134, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40223 (M.D. Ga. May 19, 2008). In a deceptive trade case, the trial court erred in granting permanent injunctive relief at the interlocutory hearing as the defendant had no notice that the trial court intended at that hearing to consider the merits of permanent injunctive relief. McHugh Fuller Law Group, PLLC v. PruittHealth-Toccoa, LLC, 297 Ga. 94, 772 S.E.2d 660, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 297 (2015). Proof of neither direct competition nor actual confusion is required to obtain relief under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-373. All that is required is that use of name cause confusion to others using reasonable care. Giant Mart Corp. v. Giant Disct. Foods, Inc., 247 Ga. 775, 279 S.E.2d 683, 1981 Ga. LEXIS 877 (1981). Proof of falsity is sufficient to sustain a finding of irreparable injury for purposes of a preliminary injunction. Energy Four, Inc. v. Dornier Medical Sys., 765 F. Supp. 724, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7139 (N.D. Ga. 1991). Proof of lost sales. — Plaintiff who can prove actual lost sales is entitled to an injunction even though the decline in the plaintiff’s sales is mostly attributable to factors other than the plaintiff’s competitor’s allegedly false or misleading representations. Because detailed proof of individual lost sales goes to the issue of damages, it is not a prerequisite for equitable relief. Energy Four, Inc. v. Dornier Medical Sys., 765 F. Supp. 724, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7139 (N.D. Ga. 1991). Proof of monetary damages may not be necessary to sustain every cause of action based on the plaintiff’s disparagement claim, but a showing that some customer’s buying decision was adversely affected is a threshold requirement for each. Servicetrends, Inc. v. Siemens Medical Sys., 870 F. Supp. 1042, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11383 (N.D. Ga. 1994), amended, No. 1:93-CV-299-JTC, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15997 (N.D. Ga. June 24, 1994). Confusingly similar names. — This part authorizes injunctions restraining use of a family name previously 183 appropriated by another as a trade name, where under all the circumstances, such as the other descriptive words of the trade name, the type of business carried on, the geographical area in which the trade name has acquired a meaning, and other distinguishing factors, there remains a likelihood of confusion and misunderstanding among the general public. Baker Realty Co. v. Baker, 228 Ga. 766, 187 S.E.2d 850, 1972 Ga. LEXIS 902 (1972). Infringement of trade names. — If the right to protection of a trade name exists, the injured party may seek both injunctive relief and damages. Diedrich v. Miller & Meier & Assocs., 254 Ga. 734, 334 S.E.2d 308, 1985 Ga. LEXIS 849 (1985). Chapter 11 debtor was entitled to a preliminary injunction under the Lanham Act, 11 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-373 and 10-1-451, against a competing user of its trade name “Reliable Heating and Air” because the debtor clearly demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claims and demonstrated that it would suffer irreparable harm if an injunction were not issued. Reliable Air, Inc. v. Jape (In re Reliable Air, Inc.), No. 05-85627, No. 07-6352, 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 3711 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Sept. 14, 2007). Denial of interlocutory injunction reversed only for abuse of discretion. — The denial of an interlocutory injunction against alleged deceptive trade practices will not be reversed unless it appears that the trial court has abused the court’s discretion. Baker Realty Co. v. Baker, 228 Ga. 766, 187 S.E.2d 850, 1972 Ga. LEXIS 902 (1972). Requirement of harm. — Unpublished decision: O.C.G.A. § 10-1-373(a) of the Georgia Deceptive 10-1-373 Trade Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 et seq., required the plaintiff dry cleaners to allege they were likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice and the allegations that the defendant natural gas supplier disseminated information about future natural gas prices did not pose any future harm, nor were the dry cleaners entitled to injunctive relief for a hypothetical future harm; thus, the Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims failed. Byung Ho Cheoun v. Infinite Energy, Inc., 363 Fed. Appx. 691, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1866 (11th Cir. 2010). Punitive damages. — Trademark holder was not entitled to summary judgment regarding punitive damages under Georgia state law because O.C.G.A. § 10-1-373 applied only to causes of action for torts arising before July 1, 1987, and this issue was required to be decided only if there was an award of damages in the action for trademark infringement. ITT Corp. v. Xylem Group, LLC, 963 F. Supp. 2d 1309, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109381 (N.D. Ga. 2013). Attorneys’ fees determined in bifurcated proceeding. — When an alleged Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370, et seq., violation is one of several claims being tried, the UDTPA contemplates a bifurcated proceeding. The statute anticipates that the fact finder will first determine the prevailing party before the trial court makes a decision as to whether an award of attorney fees is warranted. Logically, therefore, neither party would present evidence as to their attorney fees during the trial, and the issue is not required to be raised in the pretrial order. Bearoff v. Craton, 350 Ga. App. 826, 830 S.E.2d 362, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 384 (2019).