CHAI Ling’s Case

choi

(1) Jenzabar, Inc v Long Bow Group, Inc (2012) 82 Mass.App.Ct. 648, 977 N.E.2d 75.
masscases.com/cases/app/82/82massappct648.html
(the penultimate paragraph: “4. Attorney's fees. After judgment entered on the trademark claims, Long Bow moved for attorney's fees pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 7(b), 365 Mass. 749 (1974); Rule 9A of the Superior Court (2009); and § 35(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) (2006). Aware that Jenzabar was pursuing an appeal, the judge found that the motion was ‘premature on the ground of judicial economy.’ For that reason, the judge ‘decline[d] to act on [the] motion at [that] time,’ and denied it without prejudice. Although Long Bow filed a cross appeal challenging that ruling, both parties agree that the question of attorney's fees now needs to be addressed and that the Superior Court is the appropriate forum to do so. Without specifically endorsing the approach taken by the motion judge, we remand the question of attorney's fees for a Superior Court judge to resolve in the first instance”)

My comment: The quotation implied that superior court should have decided attorneys’ fees (so that if unsatisfied, Jenzabar could have appealed that also).


(2) After the appeal was decided, in a 2 to 1 decision, against Jenzabar, Inc as well as CHAI Ling and her husband Robert Maginn, defendant/appellee Long Bow went back to superior  court to move for assessment  of attorneys’ fee.

Judith Fabricant J, Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees, Oct 16, 2013, in Jenzabar, Inc v Long Bow Group, Inc, Suffolk Superior Court Civil Action No 07-2075-H.
www.citizen.org/documents/Jenzab ... -Attorneys-Fees.pdf
(last paragraph: "Clearly, Jenzabar's concern was not user confusion as to sponsorship or source, but harm to its reputation arising from teh content of Long Bow's statements. Jenzanar's multiple and shifting legal and factual theories, asserted at the various stages of the case, support the same conclusion [note 13], as does its objection to pro hac vice admission of the lawyer who assumed Long Bow's defense after it had exhausted its resources. In this regard, the differences in economic power between the parties is one of many instances that tends to confirm the conclusion that Jenzabar engaged in extortionate conduct, making this case exceptional. ORDER  For the reasons stated, defendant Long Bow Group Inc's motion for attorneys' gee is ALLOWED in the total amount of $511, 943.12”)