This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Business Law
Unfair Competition
Consumer Protection

Pom Wonderful LLC v. Purely Juice Inc.

Published: Aug. 1, 2009 | Result Date: Jul. 17, 2008 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 07CV02633(CAS) Bench Decision –  $1,498,042 (plus $622,756 in attorney fees and costs)

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Mark D. Campbell
(Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP)

Donald A. Miller
(Loeb & Loeb LLP)


Defendant

Stephen E. Abraham
(Law Offices of Stephen Abraham)


Experts

Plaintiff

Kenneth D. Rugeti
(technical)

Defendant

Barbara Luna
(technical)

Facts

In 2002, Pom Wonderful LLC began selling its pomegranate-based products throughout the United States, and became the largest grower and distributor of pomegranates and pomegranate juice in the nation. Later, Purely Juice Inc. marketed its beverage as consisting of 100 percent pomegranate juice with "no added sugars or sweeteners." Pom Wonderful sued Purely Juice and its owner, Paul Hachigian, for false advertising and unfair competition.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that Purely Juice's beverage actually contained inferior sugars and fruits other than pomegranate. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant conducted false advertising, which allowed it to charge less for its product and unfairly misled customers away from Pom Wonderful's pomegranate juice. Further, plaintiff alleged that defendant's misleading statements damaged Pom Wonderful's reputation and good will.

Damages

Pom Wonderful sought damages of $1,192,905 for lost profits, and $305,137 in defendant's profits.

Result

The court awarded the plaintiff $1,498,042 plus fees and costs in the amount of $622,756.

Other Information

The case is now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. FILING DATE: April 20, 2007.


#116172

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390