multi-million dollar award for trade secret theft & false advertising of “local” origin

Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Sycamore, 2018 WL 1578115, No.
13-cv-00749-DN-DBP (D. Utah Mar. 29, 2018)
A relatively large trade secret/false advertising verdict in
this case.  Bimbo prevailed at trial on
its trade secret claim that Sycamore revealed Bimbo Bakeries’ secret recipe for
Grandma Sycamore’s brand “granny” style white bread, which U.S. Bakery obtained
and used in the production of its own granny bread. In addition, Bimbo
prevailed on its false advertising claim that U.S. Bakery’s use of the word
“local” in the tagline “Fresh. Local. Quality.” was misleading in markets,
including Utah, where U.S. Bakery’s bread was baked out of state.
The jury found that U.S. Bakery’s trade secret misappropriation
was willful and malicious (by clear and convincing evidence), and resulted in $1,578,942
in damages.  Syacamore was responsible $526,314
in damages, and the misappropriation was willful and malicious (by a
preponderance of the evidence).  The jury
also found that U.S. Bakery’s false advertising of “local” was willful and
resulted in $8,027,720 in profits (apparently all the profits from its sales
using the tagline, with no deductions).
The court declined to enhance damages on the false
advertising claim, because though the jury found actual damages, the verdict
form didn’t ask the jury to quantify those damages, at Bimbo’s request. Thus,
there was no basis on which the court could “enter judgment, according to the
circumstances of the case, for any sum above the amount found as actual
damages, not exceeding three times such amount,” as provided for in the statute—there
was nothing to multiply. Instead, the finding of actual damages allowed the
profit award.  The equitable factors
weighed in favor of disgorging profits, including (1) the jury’s finding that
the false advertising was willful, (2) evidence of Bimbo’s lost sales, (3) U.S.
Bakery’s direct role in marketing its products under the “Fresh. Local.
Quality.” tagline; and (4) the inadequacy of Bimbo Bakeries’ unquantified
actual damages.
The court declined to award attorneys’ fees for the false
advertising claim. This was not an “exceptional” case in terms of litigating in
an unreasonable manner, and the issues were close; U.S. Bakery “meaningfully
challenged” Bimbo on falsity and consumer confusion.
The trade secret award, however, did include exemplary
damages and fees due to the jury’s finding of “willful and malicious”
misappropriation. The court awarded a “less exacting” amount. Though the
misappropriation was willful and malicious and continued for nearly four years,
the issues were closely litigated and U.S. Bakery is the smaller company; nor
was a desire to harm Bimbo, apart from competing with it, shown.  The court also took into account the false
advertising disgorgement and awarded 50% of the compensatory damages, or
$789,471, along with reasonable attorneys’ fees.
The court also awarded a permanent injunction on the trade
secret claim, though the injunction did not extend to blocking U.S. Bakery from
producing a granny-style bread product as long as it didn’t use the trade

from Blogger

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s