Gopets Ltd. v. Edward Hise

MEMORANDUM

Joseph Hise (“Hise”) appeals the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to GoPets LTD. (“GoPets”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We decline to revisit the merits of the underlying claims we already have decided, GoPets Ltd. v. Hise, 657 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir.2011), as that decision is law of the case, United States v. Jingles, 702 F.3d 494, 498 (9th Cir.2012).

The district court did not err in deeming this case exceptional. 15 U.S.C. § 1117 (a). The record supports the district court’s finding that Hise acted willfully and in bad faith. Gracie v. Gracie, 217 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir.2000); see also Traffic-School.com, Inc. v. Edriver Inc., 653 F.3d 820, 832 (9th Cir.2011) (“[T]he district court’s willfulness finding is supported by evidence that defendants planned to mislead site visitors and knew that their conduct confused consumers.”).

The district court awarded reasonable attorney’s fees. 15 U.S.C. § 1117 (a). Hise did not challenge the original $76,260 in fees awarded while his first appeal was pending. On remand, the district court determined that half of the original fee award was reasonably attributable to the-gopets.com…