United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Urbana Division
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
For All Star Championship Racing Inc, Plaintiff, Counter Defendant: John Bramfeld, JOHN F BRAMFELD LAW OFFICE, Champaign, IL.
For O'Reilly Automotive Stores Inc, doing business as O'Reilly Auto Parts, Defendant: Stephen R Kaufmann, LEAD ATTORNEY, HEPLER BROOM LLC, Springfield, IL; Troy A Bozarth, LEAD ATTORNEY, Michael Patrick Murphy, HEPLER BROOM LLC, Edwardsville, IL.
For O'Reilly Automotive Stores Inc, Counter Claimant: Stephen R Kaufmann, LEAD ATTORNEY, HEPLER BROOM LLC, Springfield, IL; Troy A Bozarth, LEAD ATTORNEY, Michael Patrick Murphy, HEPLER BROOM LLC, Edwardsville, IL.
MICHAEL P. McCUSKEY, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
This case is before the court on Defendant O'Reilly Automotive Stores's (" Defendant" ) Motion for Summary Judgment (#57) on its Amended Counterclaims (#26). The underlying case is a contract dispute. While Plaintiff All Star Championship Racing's (" Plaintiff" ) claims are still being litigated and are proceeding independently, Defendant has filed five counterclaims. The present opinion adjudicates the Motion for Summary Judgment on those counterclaims. The court has reviewed the briefs, exhibits, and prior filings in the docket. Following this careful review, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#57) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as to Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4; and DENIED as to Count 5.
With respect to Counts 1 and 2 of Defendant's Counterclaims, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28 U.S.C. § 1338 as those claims arise under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051-1141n. Regarding Counts 3, 4, and 5 of the Counterclaims, this court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 as those claims form part of the same case or controversy as the Lanham Act claims. In addition, because Plaintiff is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Illinois, with a principal place of business in Illinois, and Defendant is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Missouri, with a principal place of business in Missouri, and Defendant has alleged an excess of $75,000 in controversy in its notice of removal (but Plaintiff's original claim was $66,000), this Court has diversity jurisdiction.
Magistrate Judge David G. Bernthal previously described the underlying factual background in his Report and Recommendation (#58). Those facts will not be repeated here in detail, but instead only those relevant to the counterclaims. Plaintiff organizes automobile races and sells advertisement rights associated with those races. There are three series relevant here: the All Star Circuit of Champions; the Midwest All Star Series; and the All Star Late Model series. Defendant is a publicly-traded corporation that sells automobile parts with nearly 4,000 retail stores and over six billion dollars in sales in 2012.  Defendant registered four trademarks (the " Marks" ). These are (a) U.S. Trademark Registration Number 3,526,775, for a trademark consisting of the word " O'Reilly" in stylized font with a shamrock positioned inside the " O" (" O'Reilly Mark" ); (b) U.S. Trademark Registration Number 1,896,667, for a service mark consisting of the words " O'Reilly Auto Parts" with the word " O'Reilly" in stylized font with a shamrock positioned inside the " O" (" O'Reilly Auto Parts Mark" ); (c) U.S. Trademark Registration Number 3,629,620, for a service mark consisting of the words " O'Reilly Racing" for " promoting the ticket sales relating to the motor sports racing events of others" (" O'Reilly Racing Mark" ); and (d) U.S. Trademark Registration Number 3,422,750, for a service mark consisting of the words " O'Reilly Auto Parts Professional Parts People"
for " retail and on-line retail stores featuring automobile parts and accessories" (" O'Reilly Auto Parts Professional Parts People Mark." ).
The parties do not contest that in 2006, Defendant purchased advertising rights from Plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest for the 2007, 2008, and 2009 racing seasons for the All Star Circuit of Champions (the " 2007, 2008, and 2009 Agreement" ), acquiring, among other things, the right to display Defendant's Marks on its marketing, advertising, and other affiliated materials. (Amended Counterclaim, #26 ¶ 15; Answer to Amended Counterclaim, #66 ¶ 15; Motion for Summary Judgment, #57 exh. E). The parties also do not contest that in 2007, they entered into a similar agreement for the 2008, 2009, and 2010 racing seasons for the Midwest All Star series. (#26 ¶ 16; #66 ¶ 16; #57 exh. F). At some point in 2010, a dispute arose between the parties regarding the formation and validity of a contract that would have renewed the advertising rights for the 2010, 2011, and 2012 seasons for the All Star Circuit of Champions (the " 2010, 2011, and 2012 Agreement" ).
Both parties have a different presentment and interpretation of events and correspondence occurring from late 2009 through the middle of 2011. In late 2009, Defendant sent Plaintiff a copy of what it alleges was a draft of the 2010, 2011, and 2012 Agreement. (#57, exh. G). The copy had several minor redlined corrections on it. Plaintiff signed it, dated it 1-4-010 [ sic ] (it appears that 1-4-09 was written, then corrected to be 1-4-10), and returned it to Defendant. Defendant avers that it never countersigned that contract, and indeed, the copies provided by both parties are not countersigned. There are other contested issues.
For example, Defendant alleges, but Plaintiff denies, the existence of an oral extension of the license to use the Marks to last through the 2010 season. (#26 ¶ 31; #66 ¶ 31). Plaintiff does admit the following facts: First, on or about November 2, 2010, Defendant's representative contacted Plaintiff and stated that Defendant had made a business decision to discontinue its relationship with Plaintiff and had decided to pursue relationships with other sponsorship partners. (#26 ¶ 39; #66 ¶ 39). Second, by the end of 2010, a written agreement had expired (although Plaintiff does not indicate what agreement) (Defendant's Requests for Admissions, #57 exh. X ¶ 10 and Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Request for Admission, #27 ¶ 10; but compare the inconsistency in Plaintiff's answer in #26 ¶ 41 and #66 ¶ 41). Third, that it did not have specific permission or consent from Defendant to continue using Defendant's Marks after December 31, 2010. (#26 ¶ ¶ 47, 51 and #66 ¶ 47, 51). Fourth, between January 2011, and late June, 2011, that Defendant's Marks appeared on Plaintiff's website in numerous places. (#26 ¶ ¶ 45-46 and # 47 ¶ ¶ 45-46). Fifth, Plaintiff alleges, but Defendant denies, that Defendant supplied to Plaintiff promotional items to give away at the 2011 races, and that Defendant approved all promotional and advertising actions taken by Plaintiff during the 2010 racing season up until November 2011. (Amended Complaint, #56 ¶ 15; Answer to Amended Complaint, #70 ¶ 15). Finally, Plaintiff admits that it received a letter from Defendants dated July 1, 2011 indicating that it was Defendant's position that there is " no agreement currently in place" between Plaintiff and Defendant. (#66 exh. A). That letter further demanded that Plaintiff cease and desist any and all further usage of the Marks. Around July 16, 2011, Plaintiff admits that it published the following press release on its website:
All Star Championship Racing, Inc. ends relationship with O'Reilly Auto Parts Camargo, IL (7-16-11) - All Star
Championship Racing, Inc. has removed O'Reilly Auto Parts as the title sponsor for the All Star Circuit of Champions, All Star Late Model Series, and the Midwest All Star Series resulting from an unpaid invoice in January 2011, we are now moving forward with collection proceedings. Please note that all O'Reilly trademarked material have been removed from all logos, printed material, and social media from this date forward. We have enjoyed several years in working with O'Reilly Auto Parts in sponsoring our company, it is regretful the relationship has ended.
(#57 exh. X ¶ 45; #27 ¶ 45). Plaintiff admits that, despite posting that release, it had continued to use Defendant's Marks on signs at races it managed, on its website, and in photographs on its website showing race winners standing next to a sign with Defendant's Marks through August 22, 2011. (#57 exh. X ¶ ¶ 52-57, 59-61 and #27 ¶ ¶ 52-57, 59-61). Plaintiff also later admitted that it was using the Marks on its website was September 30, 2011. (#57 exh. X, ¶ 87; #27, ¶ 87). In an Opinion issued on September 30, 2011, this court noted that:
On July 16, 2011, All Star posted a news update on its website which stated that the relationship with O'Reilly had ended and that it had removed all Marks from its website and promotional materials. However, All Star's website continued to have O'Reilly's Marks on its website and on promotional materials at races, which were captured in pictures posted on its website.
[ * * *]
Moreover, this court notes that in spite of All Star's continued statements that it has removed all references to O'Reilly, as of September 29, 2011, All Star's website, amazingly, still contains references to O'Reilly.
(#22 p.3 n.1). Plaintiff asserts that its failure to remove the Marks from its website was " simply an oversight". (#66 ¶ 46).
On May 23, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant in the Circuit Court of Douglas County in Illinois state court, alleging breach of contract. (#1 exh. A). On June 24, 2011, Defendant removed that case to this court. (#1). On July 1, 2011, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (#6) and a series of counterclaims (#8). On August 24, 2011, Defendant filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (#12), which this court granted on September 30, 2011 (#22). On October 18, 2011, Defendant filed an Amended Counterclaim (#26). On November 1, 2011, Judge Bernthal entered his Report and Recommendations, recommending that the case be dismissed because Plaintiff alleged the breach of a contract that could not be performed within the span of one year and was not countersigned by Defendant, thereby making it unenforceable under the Illinois Statute of Frauds. (#28). The Report and Recommendation was adopted (#34), and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice (#34).
On February 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend/Correct its complaint (#35), which was granted on March 15, 2012 (#42). An appeal (#43) was filed, which was denied (#47), permitting Plaintiff to file its Amended Complaint, which alleged one claim of fraud and one claim of recovery under a theory of quasi-contract (#48). Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (#49), which was granted on October 4, 2012, as to the allegation of fraud, but denied as to the allegation of recovery under quasi-contract, permitting the latter claim to proceed (#58). On
January 14, 2013, this court accepted the order (#69).
Earlier, on October 1, 2012, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. (#57). On November 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed its Response (#67), and Defendant filed its Reply on November 28, 2012 (#68). That Motion (#57) is the matter currently before the court.
Summary judgment is proper " if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a district court has one task and one task only: to decide, based upon the evidence of record, whether there is any material dispute of fact that requires a trial. Waldridge v. Am. Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 920 (7th Cir. 1994). In making this determination, the court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986 ); Singer v. Raemisch, 593 F.3d 529, 533 (7th Cir. 2010). Defendant has asserted five counterclaims: 1) trademark infringement; 2) false designation of origin; 3) violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act; 4) Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act; and 5) defamation.
As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff's Response (#67) to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is wholly inadequate. Local Rule 7.1(D)(2)(b) requires a Response to state in separate subsections the undisputed material facts, disputed material facts, disputed immaterial facts, undisputed immaterial facts, and additional material facts. Each subsection must list by number each undisputed material fact from the motion for summary judgment and whether it is considered to be material and disputed. Even read liberally, Plaintiff's Response did not comply with Local Rule 7.1(D)(2)(b). Instead, the Response has a section called " Discussion of O'Reilly's Statement of Undisputed Facts" and fails to list each of Defendant's facts by number and respond to each numbered fact. Further, the " Discussion" section appears to engage in argument when it cites to Webster's Dictionary in support of the proposition that the word " use" has a different legal meaning than what Defendant proposes it to mean. Finally, Plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 7.1(D)(2)(b)(5), which requires that any additional material facts must be numbered and supported by evidentiary documentation referenced by specific page. Local Rule 7.1(D)(2)(b)(6) requires that " [a] failure to respond to any numbered fact will be deemed an admission of the fact." Because Plaintiff has not complied with the local rules, this court is permitted to accept as true all of Defendant's facts for the purpose of the motion at bar. However, a party's failure to submit a proper response " does not lead directly and without more to the entry of summary judgment, but merely establishes the factual basis from which the [summary judgment] analysis will proceed." LaSalle Bank Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F.3d 387, 392 (7th Cir. 1995). It remains " movant's burden to demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that he is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law." Doe v. Cunningham, 30 F.3d 879, 883 (7th Cir. 1994). Where the evidence presented clearly contradicts the facts stated by Defendant, this court has drawn any and all inferences in favor of Plaintiff.
Count 1: Trademark Infringement
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff engaged in trademark infringement when it used Defendant's Marks without its consent, in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114. ...