From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...
Balance Dynamics Corp. v. Schmitt Industries
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
204 F.3d 683 (2000)
Balance Dynamics Corporation (plaintiff) and Schmitt Industries (defendant) manufactured balancing products for industrial grinders. Balance Dynamics’ balancer used halon gas, while Schmitt’s balancing system used metal weights. In 1993, Schmitt sent a letter to 3,200 customers and potential customers indicating that products containing ozone-depleting substances (e.g., halon) were being banned. The letter indicated that Schmitt’s balancing system did not use ozone-depleting substances and said that if halon-balancer users wanted to dispose of their balancers before they were banned, Schmitt’s balancing system would be an easy replacement. Balance Dynamics learned about Schmitt’s letter and discussed the letter with 12 customers, including some who had contacted Balance Dynamics with concerns. After investigating, Balance Dynamics concluded that its halon balancer was not slated to be banned. Balance Dynamics personnel made customer visits to discuss the issue and sent a fact sheet to concerned customers. Balance Dynamics subsequently sued Schmitt for violating the Lanham Act’s prohibition of false advertising. Balance Dynamics conceded that it had not experienced any lost sales or lost profits. However, Balance Dynamics sought damages including damage-control costs incurred in responding to Schmitt’s false advertising, disgorgement of Schmitt’s profits, and compensation for loss of goodwill. The district court ultimately entered judgment in Schmitt’s favor, concluding that Balance Dynamics had failed to prove actual confusion in the marketplace based on Schmitt’s communication. Balance Dynamics appealed. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that Schmitt could be liable under the Lanham Act because its communication had had a tendency to deceive. The court then analyzed what relief might be available to Balance Dynamics on remand.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Dowd, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.