About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (Spring 2025)

handle is hein.ali/retuc0519 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2025 Citations UNFAIR COMPETITION 3D Generally S.D.Iowa, 2023. Cit. generally in cases cit. in sup. Estate of a bar owner who was well known for performing a bar trick in the 1950s sued brewery, alleging, among other things, that it appropriated the bar owner's name, likeness, and right of publicity for marketing purposes in violation of Iowa common law. This court denied in part brewery's motion for summary judgment, predicting, as a matter of first impression, that the Iowa Supreme Court would recognize a cause of action for appropriation of the right of publicity consistent with the Restatement Third of Unfair Competition, which the Iowa Supreme Court had frequently cited favorably. Estate of Bisignano by and through Huntsman v. Exile Brewing Company, LLC, 694 F.Supp.3d 1088, 1115, 1116. CHAPTER 1. THE FREEDOM TO COMPETE § 1. General Principles C.A.7, 2024. Com. (d) quot. in case quot. in sup. Company that designed, manufactured, and sold two- way radios and related products worldwide sued competitor under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the Copyright Act, alleging that defendant poached three of plaintiff's engineers by offering them high-paying jobs in exchange for stealing plaintiff's proprietary information, which it used to develop and sell competing radios. The jury found in favor of plaintiff and awarded, among other things, damages for unjust enrichment and punitive damages. This court affirmed, holding that the punitive damages awarded for plaintiff s DTSA claims did not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process clause. The court cited Restatement Third of Unfair Competition § 1 in reasoning that, given the particularly harmful nature of defendant's misappropriation to the value of plaintiff s trade secrets and the nature of the unjust enrichment award, it was appropriate to treat defendant's avoided research and development costs as a competitive harm to plaintiff. Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd., 108 F.4th 458, 502. COPYRIGHT 02025 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.