Atc Distribution Group, Inc. v. Whatever It Takes Transmissions & Parts, Inc

402 F.3d 700 (6th Cir. 2005)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P sells transmission parts. P acquired Hester Transmission Parts (HTP), along with HTP's building and the right to use HTP's transmission parts catalog, which HTP had originally acquired from McCarty, a printing company. P also acquired the services of Kenny Hester (D) and the North Carolina Defendants, who had worked at HTP for varying amounts of time. Hester (D) signed an employment contract and an agreement not to compete with P or solicit its employees prior to August 2, 1999. In 1995, P first published a transmission parts catalog that Hester (D) had worked on since his days at HTP, a catalog that P hoped would become the industry standard. This and subsequent catalogs were distributed throughout the industry. The P catalog and the parts numbering system used in the catalog were based on an original catalog and numbering system that McCarty, the printing company, had distributed to several parts wholesalers, each with the wholesaler's own name on it. The illustrations in the catalog were obtained by hiring an artist to create sketched copies of photographs found in another distributor's catalog and then rearranging them in an order consistent with the assembly and disassembly of a transmission. Kenny Hester (D), left P to form his own transmission parts company, D. D hired away several of P's other employees and created a transmission parts catalog that was almost identical to the P catalog. After Hester (D) left P in 1999, he obtained an electronic copy of the catalog, on which he based a new catalog used by Ds. According to Hester (D), no copies of this catalog have ever been distributed but Ds do use many of P's part numbers in advertising and in its internal processes. P sued Ds alleging twelve intellectual property and unfair business practices claims. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Ds on P's claims for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, common law trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, aiding and abetting trademark infringement and unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit, misappropriation and conversion, trade defamation, and intentional interference with business relations. P appealed.