Icon, Nautilus file court briefs on Icon's victory in trademark infringement case

Icon and Nautilus have filed lengthy briefs with the U.S. District Court, District of Utah, to state their sides one last time before the judge in the case finalizes the $7.8 million jury verdict handed down in Icon's favor. The case was filed by Icon against Nautilus in August 2002, claiming trademark infringement and false advertising.
Author:
Updated:
Original:

Icon and Nautilus have filed lengthy briefs with the U.S. District Court, District of Utah, with each company stating its side one last time before the judge in the case finalizes the $7.8 million jury verdict handed down in Icon's favor.

The case was filed by Icon against Nautilus in August 2002, claiming trademark infringement and false advertising. Judge Tena Campbell will either approve the verdict or could consider making changes to it or the amount of damages assessed by the jury. Depending on the action, Nautilus could decide to appeal the ruling, Nautilus has told SNEWS®.

Icon in its 27-page brief stated that the jury verdict should be treated as binding and the court "should use its discretion to increase the amount of profits." Nautilus, on the other hand, stated the jury verdict should be simply advisory.

Icon's brief goes on to tell the judge that Nautilus had agreed to a jury trial and is now bound by the jury's findings and that the court should treat the damages awarded of $7.8 million as the minimum to which Icon is entitled.  

"Although the jury's award … appears to be large in the abstract, this award is woefully inadequate as compensation to Icon when placed in the context of this case. Nautilus advertised 18 different false statements…. The jury's award is a mere 1.7 percent of Nautilus' profits and .55 percent of Nautilus' revenue from the products sold under the false statements.

"In this context, the jury's award … is neither adequate compensation nor an effective deterrent to Nautilus' willful infringement."

In conclusion, Icon stated the court should use its discretion "to enhance the jury's monetary award to adequately compensate Icon for Nautilus' infringement and to deter Nautilus from future infringement."

Nautilus in its 30-page brief – backed by several inches of exhibits – stated that the verdict is only advisory and that district and circuit courts "routinely award excessive damages," with damages intended to be compensation and not a penalty.

"At a minimum, the jury's verdict is excessive and should be significantly reduced…. The accused statements were made for the purpose of selling the Bowflex and to convey the message that the Bowflex and its Power Rods were unique, one of a kind, not available anywhere else in the world.

"Given that the message from these statements was truthful, that the statements themselves were not material, that Icon demonstrated no harm and no confusion, and that there was no demonstrated benefit to Nautilus from the statements, an award … to Icon of Nautilus' profits would be a tremendous windfall without any basis in equity.

In conclusion, Nautilus stated it requests the court "vacate the jury's verdict and enter a verdict in Nautilus' favor on Icon's claims for false advertising, trademark infringement and false marking. In the alternate, Nautilus respectfully requests that the court exercise its equitable discretion to reduce the jury's excessive award…."

The court is now expected to deliberate, with no ruling expected until the first quarter of 2006. Click here to read our Nov. 17, 2005 SNEWS® story, "Jury finds in favor of Icon's false advertising claims against Nautilus."

Related

Nautilus appeals Icon non-infringement legal victory to federal court

Not willing to give up on the nearly 3-year-old patent infringement case, Nautilus has appealed the lower court victory given to Icon in late May to the federal appellate court. After the win was handed to Icon in May when the court dismissed the case (click here to see the ...read more

Court stands firm: Nautilus told to pay Icon $7.8 million in Bowflex false advertising damages

A Utah district court has declined to change the $7.8 million award that a jury in November 2005 decided Nautilus must pay Icon Health & Fitness for what the court deemed false advertising of the Nautilus Bowflex. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, ...read more

U.S. court dismisses Nautilus' patent infringement case against Icon

After racking up a majority of the legal wins in the past, Nautilus came up short this week when a U.S. court dismissed all remaining claims in its pending patent infringement case against Icon less a month before charges were to go to trial, effectively ending the case. The ...read more

Icon wins first court-ordered payment from Nautilus in Bowflex patent case

Chipping away at the nearly $8 million verdict against Nautilus stemming from a 2002 trademark and patent infringement case, a federal judge has ruled that Nautilus must pay Icon $325,000 for false advertising of its Bowflex. The fine is part of a larger penalty awarded by a ...read more

Nautilus wins federal appeal in Icon trademark infringement battle

Taking nearly a year for a decision, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court has ruled in favor of The Nautilus Group on a July 2003 appeal and granted the company a preliminary injunction in its case against Icon that charges trademark infringement of ...read more

Nautilus loses federal appeal of Icon victory in patent infringement case

Icon's legal victory in a patent infringement case brought against it by Nautilus nearly four years ago was affirmed by the federal court when that court declined to hear the ruling by the lower court. On Aug. 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, ...read more

Jury finds in favor of Icon's false advertising claims against Nautilus

After a five-day trial and one day of deliberations, a jury in a case brought three years ago by Icon against Nautilus claiming false advertising and trademark infringement has found in favor of Icon, awarding the company more than $7.8 million in damages. The trial stemmed from ...read more

Nautilus vs. Icon infringement claims: The beat goes on

On the heels of the federal court ruling earlier this month that said the district court needed to reconsider the evidence that had led it to recent rulings in Icon's favor, the Bowflex patent infringement case filed by Nautilus against Icon more than 16 months ago will go ...read more

Court dismisses Nautilus patent case against Icon

Already having knocked down wins in the last few court rounds, Icon Fitness took the TKO in the legal battle brought by Nautilus charging patent infringement on the Bowflex by Icon's Crossbow when the district court dismissed the case last week. "It's done, for all intents and ...read more