Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff–Appellant Hornady Manufacturing Company, Inc., appealed a district court order granting summary judgment to Defendant–Appellee DoubleTap, Inc., on Hornady's trademark infringement claims. Hornady manufactured and sold firearm ammunition and related products. Since 1997, Hornady sold various products under the name "TAP," short for "Tactical Application Police." Hornady acquired trademark registration for the nonstylized word mark, "TAP." Photographs in the record indicated that the packaging for Hornady's products conspicuously features the TAP mark, both as a stand-alone mark and as incorporated within a shield resembling a police officer's badge. DoubleTap has been described as a "niche" ammunition manufacturer. Photographs in the record indicated that, as of 2006, packaging for DoubleTap's products displayed its mark as two separate words, "Double Tap," within a blue oval and flanked to the left by two bullet holes. Both parties moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on whether DoubleTap infringed on Hornady's TAP mark. Reviewing the record de novo, the Tenth Circuit held hold that two factors, strength of the mark and similarity of products and marketing, favored Hornady. The remaining four factors favored DoubleTap. "The tilt of the scales does not determine the issue. However, the key inquiry, the similarity of the marks, strongly favors DoubleTap." Hornady failed to raise a genuine factual issue regarding the likelihood of confusion, and the district court properly awarded summary judgment to DoubleTap. View "Hornady Manufacturing Co. v. Doubletap" on Justia Law

The Internal Revenue Service and several oil companies agreed to settle a tax dispute over a jointly-developed pipeline system in a closing agreement. After entering the agreement, Phillips Petroleum Company (now ConocoPhillips Company) acquired Arco Transportation (one of the original signatories to the agreement). In 2000 and 2001, Conoco revisited the tax implications of its acquisition and claimed "going-forward" and "basis-increase" deductions on its amended consolidated tax returns. The IRS refunded Conoco's 2000 going-forward deductions, but disputed the remaining deductions. The parties took the dispute to federal district court, where the district court decided the issue on cross-motions for summary judgment. The court rejected Conoco's position and granted summary judgment to the IRS. Conoco appealed. After its review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that "going-forward" deductions were impermissible for interests that Arco Transportation did not own as of July 1, 1977, and "basis-increase" deductions were impermissible because the Closing Agreement did not fix the amount of a liability or exempt that liability from section 461(h) of the Internal Revenue Code. Thus, the Court held that Conoco was not entitled to the going-forward or basis-increase deductions. View "United States v. ConocoPhillips Company" on Justia Law

A jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff-appellee Storagecraft Technology Corporation for $2.92 million when it found that former founder and director, defendant-appellant James Kirby misappropriated the company's trade secrets. Defendant argued on appeal that the verdict was excessive, and that the district court should have overturned it. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "StorageCraft Tech. Corp. v. Kirby" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Tenth Circuit considered a novel question: Does issue preclusion apply in bankruptcy court to a final determination in district court that a party waived an issue? Upon review of the circumstances of this case and the applicable statutes, the Court concluded issue preclusion did not apply to the waiver finding here. The Court reversed the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and remanded this case for the bankruptcy court to reinstate its order. View "Clark v. Zwanziger" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Robert Bonnet is a petroleum landman who conducted business through Bobby Bonnet Land Services. In 2008, Plaintiffs entered into a written contract with the Energy and Minerals Department of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation to serve collectively as an independent contractor and consultant. When the Tribe terminated this contract in 2009, Plaintiffs sued various companies and individuals (but not the Tribe) in federal court, alleging these defendants caused the Tribe to terminate this contract prematurely. Plaintiffs served the Tribe with a non-party subpoena duces tecum requesting documents relevant to their suit. The Tribe moved to quash the subpoena based on the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity. The district court denied the Tribe's motion, but modified the subpoena to limit or strike requests it deemed overbroad. The Tribe appealed. The issue before the Tenth Circuit was whether a subpoena duces tecum served on a non-party Tribe seeking documents relevant to a civil suit in federal court is itself a "suit" against the Tribe triggering tribal sovereign immunity. Pursuant to the collateral order doctrine, the Court concluded, yes, it is a "suit" against the Tribe. Therefore the Court reversed the district court's denial of the Tribe's motion to quash based on tribal immunity. View "Bonnet v. Ute Indian Tribe" on Justia Law

C.W. Mining Company filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. This case arose from the sale of assets from the company's bankruptcy estate. The four appellants did business with C.W. Mining before its involuntary bankruptcy. Appellants claimed bankruptcy trustee should not have sold certain assets to plaintiff Rhino Energy, LLC. The Tenth Circuit surmised that the question for each appellant in this case was whether relief could be granted that would not impact the sale's validity. The Court: (1) dismissed Rhino and its wholly owned subsidiary, Castle Valley Mining, LLC, from the appeals, finding no appeal sought any relief affecting either entity; (2) agreed with the district court with regard to appellee Kenneth Rushton (the bankruptcy trustee in this case), that ANR Company's appeal, COP Coal Development Company's first appeal, and Hiawatha Coal Company's first appeal were all moot; (3) affirmed the district court on COP's and Hiawatha's second appeals; and (4) reversed with regard to Charles Reynolds' appeal. View "ANR Company, Inc. v. C.O.P. Coal Development Co." on Justia Law

In November 2004, Dr. Ashard Yousuf sued Dr. George Cohlmia and Cardiovascular Surgical Specialists Corporation (CVSS) in Oklahoma state court for defamation, tortious interference with business relations/contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress/outrage, negligence, and breach of contract. Dr. Yousuf alleged that Dr. Cohlmia made a series of false statements to local media disparaging Dr. Yousuf's professional reputation. Dr. Cohlmia denied that the statements he made were false. CVSS held a professional liability policy with Physicians Liability Insurance Company (PLICO) and two identical general commercial liability policies with American National Property and Casualty Company (ANPAC, one for each business location), each of which covered Dr. Cohlmia as an additional insured. Dr. Cohlmia demanded that both insurers provide for his defense, pursuant to their respective policies. PLICO agreed to defend the lawsuit under a reservation of rights and requested ANPAC to share in the defense. ANPAC refused, contending its policy did not cover the alleged wrongdoing and that it owed no duty to defend. ANPAC further claimed that even if it erred in refusing to defend Dr. Cohlmia, PLICO had no right to indemnification or contribution for the defense costs it incurred. ANPAC appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of PLICO in a dispute regarding ANPAC's breach of its duty to defend a co-insured. PLICO cross-appealed the district court's denial of its motion for prejudgment interest. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "Yousuf v. Cohlmia" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Gerald Eller argued that since the 1990's, defendant-appellee Trans Union, LLC included multiple erroneous entries on his credit report. In this third case against the company, plaintiff brought his claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Specifically, plaintiff argued that Trans Union willfully and negligently violated the FCRA with the entries on his report. Trans Union counterclaims, arguing that plaintiff had breached the terms of a 2006 settlement agreement. A jury returned a verdict in Trans Union's favor on all issues. Plaintiff appealed, arguing multiple errors at trial. Finding none, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Eller v. Trans Union" on Justia Law

In an effort to save Quartz Mountain Aerospace, some of its investors and directors took out large loans from First State Bank of Altus for the benefit of the company. The Bank failed, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) took over as receiver and filed suit to collect on the loans. The Borrowers raised affirmative defenses to the FDIC’s claims and brought counterclaims, alleging that the Bank’s CEO had assured them that they would not be personally liable on any of the loans. The district court granted summary judgment for the FDIC because the CEO’s alleged promises were not properly memorialized in the Bank’s records. The Borrowers appealed on two grounds: (1) that the district court should not have granted summary judgment before allowing them to conduct discovery, and (2) that the district court should have set aside the summary judgment because they presented newly discovered evidence of securities fraud by the Bank. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court on both of the Borrowers' claims. View "FDIC v. Arciero, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Anil Vazirani was an independent insurance agent who owned and managed Vazirani & Associates Financial, LLC and Secured Financial Solutions, LLC. Vazirani contracted with Aviva Life and Annuity Company. After Defendants Mark Heitz and Jordan Canfield, executives at Aviva, cancelled the contract, Vazirani sued them in federal district court, alleging that they tortuously interfered with the contract. The district court awarded summary judgment to Defendants, holding that an officer of a company could be liable for tortious interference with a company contract only if he was motivated by solely personal interests. The court concluded Vazirani failed to produce evidence that defendants were motivated by solely personal interests in terminating the contract. Finding no error with that decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Vazirani v. Heitz" on Justia Law