Barrington Music Products Inc v. Guitar Center Stores, Inc. et al

Filing 144

OPINION AND ORDER The court DENIES Barrington Music Products, Inc.'s 137 motion to amend the judgment. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/6/18. (kjp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
BARRINGTON MUSIC PRODUCTS, )
INC.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
Vs.
)
)
MUSIC & ARTS CENTER; GUITAR )
CENTER STORES, INC.; EASTMAN )
MUSIC COMPANY and WOODWIND )
& BRASSWIND, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Cause No. 3:16-cv-06-RLM

ORDER AND OPINION
Barrington Music Products, Inc., sued Music & Arts Centers,
Guitar Center Stores, Inc., Eastman Music Company, and Woodwind &
Brasswind, Inc. for trademark infringement. The jury found for
defendants Music & Arts Centers, Eastman Music, and Woodwind &
Brasswind, but found for Barrington with respect to Guitar Center
Stores. The jury awarded damages, reflecting revenue from sales of the
infringing VENTUS products, of $3,228. Barrington asks the court,
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a), to amend the damages
award to $4,947,200, which Barrington describes as the amount shown
by the undisputed evidence. Alternatively, Barrington seeks a new trial.
The court disagrees with Barrington and finds no reason to disturb the
verdict.

1

A court can alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(a) if the
verdict is against the weight of the evidence, Pickett v. Sheridan Health
Care Ctr., 610 F.3d 434, 440 (7th Cir. 2010), or when undisputed
evidence shows the verdict was incorrect on the amount of damages.
Liriano v. Hobart Corp., 170 F.3d 264, 272-273 (2d Cir. 1999). The
verdict must stand unless, when the trial record is viewed as favorably as
reasonably possible to the non-movant, there’s no rational connection
between the evidence and the damage award. Northern Indiana Gun &
Outdoor Shows, Inc. v. Hedman, 111 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 1022 (N.D. Ind.
2000).
The jury appears to have based its damages award on Barrington’s
Exhibit 32, which shows Guitar Center’s revenue from its sales of
VENTUS products to have been $3,228 – the precise amount of the jury’s
verdict. Barrington says that’s the wrong number, and points to its
testimony to the effect that Guitar Center’s gross revenue from the sale of
VENTUS products from 2011 through trial was $4,947,200.
Barrington’s confusion flows from its having used the term “Guitar
Center” in different ways at trial. All four defendants were related to
Guitar Center, Inc. Guitar Center, Inc. owned Music & Arts and
Woodwind & Brasswind (though they operated independently of each
other); Eastman manufactured the products for the other defendants. At
times during the trial, Barrington’s counsel used “Guitar Center” as
Guitar Center Writ Large: Guitar Center, Inc., and its subsidiaries (and
2

maybe Eastman, too, though it was rarely clear), and referred to Music &
Arts and Woodwind & Brasswind as among “Guitar Center’s different
main brands,” “channels,” and “divisions.” Tr. at 395-396.
The dual meaning of “Guitar Center” as used by Barrington at trial
led to significant miscommunication during the cross examination of
Amanda Schoemer, who testified that although her paycheck came from
Guitar Center Inc., she worked for Music & Arts when the infringing
name was devised and she had no contact with Guitar Center personnel.
That miscommunication led to the following exchange at sidebar:
THE COURT: You've asked four questions about Guitar
Center since I -- you haven't laid a foundation yet.
MR. QUINN: Okay. Your Honor, she testified that Music &
Arts is Guitar Center.
THE COURT: No, she testified that it's part of Guitar Center
and she didn't do anything with respect to anything other than
Music & Arts and that they were separate, that they were run
pretty independently, excuse me. You sued them separately.
MR. QUINN: Well, that the brands were run separately. Yes, I
understand. But, she testified that Guitar Center Stores, Inc., a
defendant in this case is the sole owner and that Music & Arts is
just a division of that company.
THE COURT: That she is familiar with that division. You're
going beyond her knowledge, so I'm going to sustain it.
Tr. at 409-410.
This dual use of the term “Guitar Center” seems to have given rise
to this motion. Barrington argues that Music & Arts and Woodwind &
Brasswind were simply organizational components of the great Guitar
Center, Inc., so their profits are Guitar Center’s profits. But that isn’t
how the case was brought, or how the jury could have decided it. Music
& Arts and Brasswind & Woodwind (and Eastman Music, for that matter)
3

were sued as separate defendants. The jury instructions referred to
“defendants” in the plural, and included an instruction virtually
commanding separate consideration for each named defendant:
Each defendant bears the burden of proving the direct
expenses that it incurred in producing, marketing, and selling the
products at issue. If a defendant fails to prove such direct
expenses, you must find the amount of its gross revenues as the
amount of profits.
(Dkt. No. 134, Instruction 14).
The verdict form treated each named defendant separately. (Dkt.
No. 131). No reasonable jury could think that after finding Music & Arts
and Woodwind & Brasswind not liable, it was to award the profits of
those defendants to the separately named Guitar Center, Inc.
Barrington notes that neither side argued the $3,228 figure to the
jury. Rather than throw the verdict into question, that makes the jury’s
performance more impressive. The jury worked through the exhibits to
find Guitar Center Inc.’s total sales from the VENTUS products, and
found it on the fourth line of an exhibit that no one highlighted for the
jury.
This jury did exactly what it was supposed to do under the
instructions and the verdict form: decide who violated the trademark and
award to Barrington that defendant’s total sales from the VENTUS
products. The answer to the first question it was to decide was Guitar
Center, Inc., but not Music & Arts Centers or Eastman Music or
Woodwind & Brasswind, who infringed the trademark. The answer to the
4

second question was the sales by Guitar Center, Inc., but not those of
Music & Arts Centers or Eastman Music or Woodwind & Brasswind. The
jury’s verdict was impeccable.
The court DENIES Barrington Music Products, Inc.’s motion to
amend the judgment (Dkt. No. 137).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 6, 2018

/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Robert L. Miller, Jr., Judge
United States District Judge

5