Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P owns an upscale hotel that underwent a branding change in February 2014 when the establishment became 'Hotel Chicago,' a signature Marriott venue. Around May 2016, D and his three associated entities opened their own 'Hotel Chicago' only three miles from P's site. P sued D for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and for trademark infringement and deceptive trade practices under Illinois state law. A year later, P moved voluntarily dismissed its claims, with prejudice. The district judge granted P's motion and entered judgment on February 21, 2018. D made a post-judgment request for attorney fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), which permits the district court to award reasonable fees to the prevailing party in 'exceptional cases.' Two standards for determining exceptionality were presented: (1) a case is exceptional under § 1117(a) if the decision to bring the claim constitutes an 'abuse of process'; and (2) the totality-of-the-circumstances approach under the Patent Act that the Supreme Court announced in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 134 S.Ct. 1749, 188 L. Ed. 2d 816 (2014). The district judge ruled that the 'abuse-of-process' standard was correct and found that P had not brought an exceptional case warranting attorney fees. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.