Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Muhler Company, Inc. v. Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., 4th Cir. (2016)
The Muhler Company, Inc. v. Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., 4th Cir. (2016)
No. 15-1843
COMPANY;
MW
INC.; ALENCO
Defendants Appellees,
and
PLY GEM
WINDOWS,
WINDOW
GROUP;
MW
WINDOWS
&
DOORS;
GREAT
LAKES
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (2:11-cv-00862-SB)
Submitted:
Decided:
Appellant.
Steve M. Pharr, Stacey Bailey Pharr, Matthew M.
Pagett, PHARR LAW, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
PER CURIAM:
The Muhler Company, Inc. (Muhler), appeals the district
courts orders granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc.; Ply Gem Industries, Inc.; AWC Holding
Company; Alenco Holding Corporation; MWM Holdings, Inc.; and MW
Manufacturers, Inc. (collectively, Ply Gem)on Muhlers claims
under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1116, 1125(a) (2012), under
the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (SCUTPA), S.C.
Code Ann. 39-5-20(a), and for common law unfair competition. *
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We review the district courts grant of summary judgment de
novo.
F.3d
352,
omitted).
370
(4th
Cir.
2014)
Bostic v. Schaefer,
(internal
quotation
marks
the
nonmoving
party.
Building
Graphics,
must
rely
on
more
than
conclusory
Inc.
v.
Lennar
[T]he nonmoving
allegations,
mere
Dash v. Mayweather,
Lanham
Act
creates
private
right
of
action
for
15 U.S.C.
must
establish
that
his
injuries
were
proximately
See Lexmark
the
Lanham
Act
context,
proximate
cause
ordinarily
flowing
directly
defendants advertising.
from
the
deception
wrought
by
the
In
adequately
practices
alleged
proximately
that
Lexmark
caused
Static
Internationals
Controls
lost
trade
sales,
alterations omitted).
typical
by
case
brought
an
indirect
victim,
in
which
the
Supply
Corp.,
547
U.S.
451,
(2006);
Holmes
v.
Health,
Foreseeability
502
is
S.E.2d
determined
by
78,
looking
to
(S.C.
the
1998).
natural
and
Vinson, 477
S.E.2d at 721.
where
inference.
79
(S.C.
the
evidence
is
susceptible
to
only
one
Ct.
App.
2011)
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
liable,
establishing
plaintiff
has
that
injuries
his
defendants [misconduct].
failed
to
were
carry
the
the
proximate
burden
of
result
of
The
by
Ply
Gem,
window
manufacturer,
results
from
The
affidavit
attributing
his
price,
did
not
had
the
decision
establish
proffered
to
by
purchase
that
local
Ply
Muhler
Gem
would
contractor,
products
have
to
obtained
the
sale
provided
sales
affidavits
from
members
of
its
staff
who
See
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
56(c)(1),
(2),
(4).
the
retail
prices
were
attributable
to
Ply
Gems
building
inspection
officialsdid
not
provide
were
reflected
in
retail
prices
or
that
mislabeling
not
demonstrated
that
its
losses
were
the
natural
and
Thus,
the
district
court
properly
concluded
that
evidence
ascertainable
failed,
as
damages
matter
necessary
to
of
law,
support
to
establish
SCUTPA
claim.
Collins Holding
Corp. v. Defibaugh, 646 S.E.2d 147, 149 (S.C. Ct. App. 2007)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
loss
permit
or
damage,
the
reasonable
he
factfinder
certainty
must
to
and
present
determine
accuracy.
sufficient
the
amount
Neither
evidence
thereof
the
to
with
existence,
1991)
(internal
marks
omitted).
Despite
the
amount
mislabeling,
the
to
of
as
damages
opposed
district
court
provide
evidence
attributable
to
other
properly
to
causes.
determined
sufficient
to
Ply
Gems
Thus,
that
we
Muhler
support
with
contentions
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED