Trademark infringement; The Lanham Act; 15 USC §§ 1114(1)(a) & 1125(a); The defendants’ “waiver” of the sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim; Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N2G Distrib., Inc.; Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(2) & 50(b); Maxwell v. Dodd; Libbey-Owens-Ford Co. v. Insurance Co. of N. Am.; Motion for a new trial; Fed.R.Civ.P. 59; FRE 403; Legal opinion testimony; Torres v. County of Oakland; Alleged improper statements by plaintiff’s counsel; Strickland v. Owens Corning; Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; Frisch's Rest., Inc. v. Shoney's Inc.; Homeowners Group, Inc. v. Home Mktg. Specialists, Inc.; Daddy’s Junky Music Stores, Inc. v. Big Daddy’s Family Music Ctr.; Injunctive relief; Cancellation of a trademark registration; 15 USC § 1119; Coach House Rest. v. Coach & Six Rests. (11th Cir.); Central Mfg., Inc. v. Brett (7th Cir.); Gracie v. Gracie (9th Cir.); Scope of injunctive relief; § 1116(a); ALPO Petfoods, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co. (DC Cir.); ProNational Ins. Co. v. Bagetta (ED MI); Juicy Couture, Inc. v. Bella Int’l Ltd. (SD NY); Attorney fees under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) (MCL 445.901 et seq.); Jordan v. Transnational Motors, Inc.; Mayhall v. A.H. Pond Co.; Civil contempt; Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Crowley

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court affirmed judgment for the plaintiff in this trademark infringement case but remanded to the district court to award attorneys’ fees, modify the injunction to prohibit the defendants from using the infringing mark “BMF Wheels,” and to cancel their registered “BMF Wheels” trademark. The plaintiff manufactures high-performance cylinder heads, while the defendants sell aftermarket wheels. The court held that the defendants waived their claim regarding the sufficiency of the evidence of “the likelihood of confusion between the marks” because they failed to make the challenge before the case was submitted to the jury. It rejected the defendants’ claim that they were entitled to a new trial based on evidentiary issues. Although the plaintiff’s founder’s testimony as to his understanding of the scope of its trademark application and registration was improperly admitted, the error was harmless and cured by jury instructions. Further, the plaintiff’s attorney’s statements were not “outrageous” or “egregious” enough to entitle the defendants to a new trial. Under the facts presented, “the nearly identical nature of the marks and the relatedness of the goods” were sufficient for the court to reject the defendants’ claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. “The similarity of the marks ‘is a factor of considerable weight,’ and here, it weighs very strongly in favor of a finding of likelihood of confusion.” The court agreed with the plaintiff that the district court “abused its discretion in declining to cancel Defendants’ trademark and in permitting Defendants to continue using the phrase ‘BMF Wheels,’ subject to redesign of the logo and disclaimers of affiliation in some instances.” The jury explicitly found, by special verdict form, “that Defendants’ use of its mark ‘BMF Wheels’ created a likelihood of confusion with ‘[P]laintiff’s registered BMF trademark.’” This likelihood was “fatal to the validity of the ‘BMF Wheels’ registration[.]” The district court’s injunction should have also addressed “the harm to Plaintiff’s interest in its registered trademark, not simply in its logo.” It also erred by denying the plaintiff attorney fees under the MCPA because “Michigan courts have allowed plaintiffs to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees without establishing actual damages.”