$460,000 attorney fees for advertising lawsuit in US must be paid: court

The judgment on 3 Decber was based on the fact “the court in exceptional cases may award attorney fees to the prevailing party,” and Judge Matz determined that the AOS’s claim was “groundless and unreasonable, and it is an exceptional case warranting an award of attorneys’ fees to ABO as the prevailing party.”
In his ruling, Judge Matz said: “The court finds that the amount is reasonable. AOS makes no specific objections to the hours or rates billed by ABO’s counsel or the overall amount requested, other than to assert that the amount is more than AOS’s assets and would result in it filing for bankruptcy.”
After more than two years of legal wrangling that pitted optometrist against optometrist following a complaint filed by the AOS against the ABO over the latter’s use of “board certification”, Judge Matz ruled in favor of the ABO.
While the judge originally ruled from the bench on 2 August, following a three-day court hearing, it was not until 23 August that he issued his written ruling in the false-advertising lawsuit.
In his judgment, he ruled: “It is hereby ordered and adjudged that judgment be and is hereby entered in favor of defendant American Board of Optometry, Inc. and against plaintiff American Optometric Society, Inc. on the plaintiff’s raining claim that defendant’s use of the term ‘board certification’ is false, misleading, confusing, deceptive or unfair in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1525.”
In the court order, Judge Matz also ruled that the AOS “did not meet its burden of proof” under the Lanham Act in regards to four out of six elents: “(1) the ABO made a false statent of fact about its own product; . . . (3) the statent actually deceived or had a tendency to deceive a substantial segment of its audience; (4) the deception was material in that it was likely to influence the purchasing decision;. . . (6) the AOS or one or more of its mbers has been or is likely to be injured by the false statent. The Court finds that the AOS failed to present evidence that would sustain its claim under the Lanham Act. In fact, in a number of instances, the AOS presented evidence that negated elents of its claim.”
ABO chairman of the board, Dr Paul Ajamian, OD, said: “This ruling ends a bitter chapter in the history of optometry. We are moving ahead and look forward to continuing to serve the profession with a credible board certification program.”
In response to the ruling, Dr Pamela Miller, OD, president and chairman of the board of AOS, said: “Our mbers rain very concerned about the current syst that led to the creation of the ABO. The AOS feels there is work to be done to make optometry and the organisations that represent optometry stronger and more representative. We will continue our mission of ‘giving optometrists a voice in their profession’.”