EVOQUA WATER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. M.W. WATERMARK, LLC; MICHAEL GETHIN, INDIVIDUALLY - Articles

All Content

EVOQUA WATER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. M.W. WATERMARK, LLC; MICHAEL GETHIN, INDIVIDUALLY

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Oct 7, 2019

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1:

ARGUED: Craig R. Smith, LANDO & ANASTASI, LLP, Cambridge, Massachusetts, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. G. Thomas Williams, MCGARRY BAIR PC, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

Attorneys 2:

ON BRIEF: Craig R. Smith, Eric P. Carnevale, LANDO & ANASTASI, LLP, Cambridge, Massachusetts, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. G. Thomas Williams, MCGARRY BAIR PC, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellees/Cross- Appellants.

Judge(s): WHITE, BUSH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. In 2016, Plaintiff Evoqua Water Technologies, LLC (“Evoqua”) filed this action against Defendants M.W. Watermark, LLC (“Watermark”) and Michael Gethin, asserting copyright, trademark, and false-advertising claims and seeking to enforce a 2003 consent judgment obtained by Evoqua’s alleged predecessor against Watermark and Gethin. The district court dismissed Evoqua’s claim that Watermark and Gethin were in contempt for violating the consent judgment, holding that the consent judgment was not assignable and therefore Evoqua lacked standing to enforce it. The district court also granted Watermark and Gethin summary judgment on Evoqua’s copyright claim after concluding that the agreement selling assets to Evoqua unambiguously did not transfer copyrights. A jury later returned a verdict for Watermark and Gethin on Evoqua’s false-advertising claim and for Evoqua on its trademark-infringement claim against Watermark but found that Gethin was not personally liable. Following trial, the district court denied Watermark’s and Gethin’s requests for attorney’s fees on Evoqua’s copyright and false-advertising claims. We conclude that the consent judgment is assignable, that the agreement transferring assets to Evoqua is ambiguous regarding copyrights, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award Watermark and Gethin attorney’s fees on the false-advertising claim. Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s dismissal of Evoqua’s claim seeking to hold defendants in contempt of the consent judgment; VACATE the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the copyright claim; AFFIRM the district court’s denial of defendants’ request for attorney’s fees on the false-advertising claim; and REMAND for further proceedings.

Attachments: