Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion in Alliance for Good Gov't v. Coalition for Better Gov't, No. 20-30233 (May 19, 2021), affirming the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to Alliance for Good Government (“Alliance”) and its determination that both Coalition for Better Government (“Coalition”) and its principal, Darleen Jacobs, are responsible for their payment.
After a series of appeals and remands, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Alliance on its federal trademark infringement claim, and enjoined Coalition from using Alliance’s marks. Alliance moved for fees under the Lanham Act’s fee-shifting provision and to join Jacobs, a principal of Coalition, because Alliance had learned during post-judgment discovery that Coalition lacked resources to pay any fee award. Both motions were granted. Jacobs and Coalition appealed, challenging both the reasonableness of the fee award and the propriety of the district court’s order joining her to the suit.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. On the reasonableness of the fee award, the Court rejected the argument presented by Jacobs and Coalition that the district court had no authority to award fees related to an appeal. The Court pointed out Federal Circuit precedent that “has interpreted the Patent Act’s fee-shifting provision as allowing district courts to ‘award[ ] fees for the entire case, including any subsequent appeals’ because neither the text ‘nor its legislative history distinguishes between awarding attorney fees in the district court and in the appellate court.’” For the same reasons, the Court concluded an award of fees for the entire case, including any appeals, was proper under the fee-shifting provisions of the Lanham Act. On the issue of joining Jacobs as a party to the suit, the Court rejected Jacobs’ argument that being joined to the suit after judgment was already entered deprived her of due process rights. The Court noted that, after Jacobs was joined to the suit, the district court gave her two weeks to respond to Alliance’s motion for attorney’s fees. The Court further noted that the district court gave due consideration to Jacobs’ arguments before issuing its ruling holding her liable for the fee award. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the demands of due process had been met and Jacobs was properly joined.