Facts

Plaintiff Bob Barker Company Inc. manufactured products used by corrections officers and inmates. These products included personal care items, metal furnishings, mattresses, uniforms, clothing and linens. Plaintiff published a catalog that featured its products which was sent to approximately 15,000 correctional facilities within the United States. Plaintiff sold a line of products under the trademark "LifeLine" including a series of garment and bedding products used to reduce incidents of inmate suicides within the detention centers. The products used polyester.

Defendant Ferguson Safety Products sold a series of similar garment and bedding products. Defendant distributed fliers, attended trade shows, participated in telephone marketing and maintained a website. From 2000 to 2003, plaintiff and defendant were involved in litigation over their products. On January 24, 2003, the parties entered into a written settlement agreement, which required payment by plaintiff to defendant of $2 million.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff alleged that after the settlement, defendant Ferguson Safety Products and defendant Lonna Speer, marketing director of Ferguson, distributed marketing materials and made statements in violation of the settlement agreement, the Lanham Act and California law. The plaintiff said defendants claimed that plaintiff's products were dangerous and could cause injury or death and that defendant's competing products were patented. The plaintiff claimed defendants published the statements in fliers, press release and a news article in "The Correctional News."

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The defendants contended that the lawsuit was brought by plaintiff to "even the score" following the settlement. The defendants claimed its flier was factually accurate and plaintiff suffered no damages.

Result

The court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, finding defendants had breached the settlement agreement. The parties stipulated to dismiss defendant Winter. The jury found that though defendants made a false or misleading statement, the statement was not about a material matter and plaintiff did not suffer any damage from defendant's breach. The jury found that defendants had disrupted an economic relationship between plaintiff and a third party but that interference had not harmed plaintiff.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Nov. 12, 2004.