Judge Joanna Seybert
In its action asserting that defendant MTU Onsite Energy Corp.'s use of the "on site energy" mark infringed its trademark, a jury held that On Site Energy Co. Inc. did not prove infringement on a federally registered—or unregistered—service mark. The jury also concluded that MTU proved that On Site's mark was descriptive and that On Site's registration of the "on site energy" mark was fraudulently obtained. In addition to only partly granting MTU's motion for attorney fees under the Lanham Act, the court rejected On Site Energy's motion seeking judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and/or to set aside the verdict. It observed that there was substantial evidence for the jury to conclude that On Site's mark was procured by fraud. Instructed by the Supreme Court's 2011 decision in Global-Tech Appliances v. SEB, the court denied On Site's assertion that the jury was erroneously instructed as to "willful blindness." It further disagreed that the jury's verdict that the "on site energy" mark was generic was against the weight of the evidence. MTU's theory was, and the jury found, that "on site energy" or "onsite energy" described a "general category of services" encompassing the services that On Site Energy Co. Inc. provides.
