Gracie v. Gracie
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
217 F.3d 1060 (2000)
- Written by Mike Cicero , JD
Facts
Carley Gracie (plaintiff) and Rorion Gracie (defendant) were both instructors of Brazilian jiu-jitsu. Carley emigrated to the United States from Brazil and began teaching Brazilian jiu-jitsu in the eastern United States as early as 1974. In 1979, Carley began teaching Brazilian jiu-jitsu in California. Rorion emigrated to the United States from Brazil in the late 1970s and began teaching Brazilian jiu-jitsu under the name Gracie Jiu-Jitsu. Rorion’s business grew to a nationwide chain of training facilities. To promote his business, Rorion used a logo of two grappling jiu-jitsu figures outlined by an open triangle. In 1989, Rorion obtained a federal trademark registration for the triangle design. In December 1994, however, Carley brought litigation against Rorion that asserted not only Lanham Act claims but also claims under the Sherman Act and California law. Rorion counterclaimed for infringement of both of his marks. In November 1997, a jury found that Rorion (1) did not possess valid trademark rights to the name Gracie Jiu-Jitsu but (2) possessed valid trademark rights to the triangle design. The jury also found that Carley had willfully infringed Rorion’s triangle design, awarding Rorion $108,000 in profits. In a posttrial motion, Rorion requested an award of $620,000 in attorney’s fees. The district court stated that it was impossible to determine an exact percentage of the award was attributable to the Lanham Act claims. The court then granted Rorion’s motion, awarding Rorion the entire $620,000. Carley appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Scannlain, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.