Hammerhead Sports Equipment Corp., plaintiff v. DuroSafe Helmets, Inc., defendant
In this civil action, there are two motions; one is from the plaintiff asking for summary judgment against the counterclaims by the defendants due to deceptive trade activities and false advertising. The other motion is to strike the expert testimony presented by the defendant in relation to the claims. In my opinion, the motion for summary judgment should be granted since it is evident that the defendant failed to show even a single false statement or identify damages caused by the plaintiff’s advertisements. Besides, I would reject the plaintiff’s motion to strike the expert testimony as unworthy.
Undisputed facts can be drawn from the presented claims and the record. In the process, many facts by the parties can be disregarded, for reasons that some of the facts are unnecessary in resolving the disputes between parties, or the cited evidence is contrary to the proposed facts. However, there is a key fact worth proposed by the defendant that is worth mentioning. This pertains to the defendant’s testimony submission of Jane Fondue, Vice President of Team Sales. Fondue explains in general terms how her conversation with prospective customers and sales representatives went whereby the customers expressed that the DuroSafe’s HeadSmart HS helmet was a “concussion helmet” and “would not purchase [defendant’s] helmets because the HeadSmart helmet was proven to reduce and prevent concussions.”
Nonetheless, Fondue fails to identify a specific discussion with prospective customers. Besides, her reference to the sales reps and customers is unclear since she cannot show which statements came from the sales agents and which ones were relayed by the customers. She only mentions once that the customers “told him”. As per the Plaintiff, these statements are unclear and blurred to be admissible. As stated in Cf. Smith Fiberglass Products, Inc. v. Ameron, Inc., 7 F.3d 1327, 1330-31 (7th Cir.1993), a customer’s evidence that does not have specific on a given discussion is inadmissible hearsay. For this reason, the decision is to grant the motion for summary judgment on the defendant’s counterclaims for deceptive business practices and false advertising. Likewise, the expert testimony of Fondue is denied as unnecessary.
Works Cited
Cf. Smith Fiberglass Products, Inc. v. Ameron, Inc., 7 F.3d 1327, 1330-31 (7th Cir.1993)