(a) A person likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice of another may be granted an injunction against it under the principles of equity and on terms that the court considers reasonable. Proof of monetary damage, loss of profits, or intent to deceive, is not required. Relief granted for the copying of an article shall be limited to the prevention of confusion or misunderstanding as to source.
(b) The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party. Costs or attorneys’ fees may be assessed against a defendant only if the court finds that defendant has wilfully engaged in a deceptive trade practice.
(c) The relief provided in this section is in addition to remedies otherwise available against the same conduct under the common law or other statutes of this State. If damages are awarded to the aggrieved party under the common law or other statutes of this State, such damages awarded shall be treble the amount of the actual damages proved.
(d) The Attorney General shall have standing to seek, on behalf of the State, any remedy enumerated in this section for any violation of § 2532 of this title that is likely to harm any person, including but not limited to individual retail purchasers and consumers of goods, services or merchandise.
(e) If a court of competent jurisdiction finds that any person has wilfully violated this subchapter, upon petition to the court by the Attorney General in the original complaint or at any time following the court’s finding of a wilful violation, the person shall forfeit and pay to the State a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each violation. For purposes of this subchapter, a wilful violation occurs when the person committing the violation knew or should have known that the conduct was of the nature prohibited by this subchapter.
6 Del. C. 1953,
§
2533;
55 Del. Laws, c. 36;
57 Del. Laws, c. 499;
69 Del. Laws, c. 203,
§
22;
70 Del. Laws, c. 186,
§
1;
71 Del. Laws, c. 470,
§
16;
Notes of Decisions
In re Niaspan Antitrust Litig., 42 F. Supp. 3d 735 (E.D. Pa. 2014).
“The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to the end-payor plaintiffs’ claims against defendants under the following consumer-protection statutes: (1) the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, see 6 Del. C. § 2533 et seq.; (2) the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures…”
Acxiom Corp. v. Axiom, Inc., 27 F. Supp. 2d 478 (D. Del. 1998).
“” 6 Del. C. §§ 2533(a). As discussed above, based on trademark infringement, the court finds that Acxiom is entitled to injunctive relief and the court will be issuing an order to that effect.”
Clontech Labs., Inc. v. Invitrogen Corp., 263 F. Supp. 2d 780 (D. Del. 2003).
“In this case, plaintiff and defendant were both competitors in the HRT market and plaintiff could reasonably expect to be damaged by defendant’s false representations as required by 6 Del. C. § 2533(a). 26. However, the court further concludes that with respect to plaintiffs…”
Hsmy, Inc. v. Getty Petroleum Mktg., Inc., 417 F. Supp. 2d 617 (D. Del. 2006).
“” 6 Del. C. § 2533(a). Accepting all allegations in Plaintiffs Amended Complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court *623 concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted under the…”
Worldspan L.P. v. Ultimate Living Grp., LLC, 390 F. Supp. 2d 412 (D. Del. 2005).
“) However, subsection (d) is a grant of standing to Delaware’s Attorney General to bring actions under the DTPA, 6 Del. C. § 2533(d), and does not confer standing on Plaintiff in this case.”
Truinject Corp. v. Galderma S.A. (D. Del. 2024).
“6 Del. C. § 2533(c). Because Truinject has no damages on its underlying claim, Truinject cannot receive damages under the DTPA.”
— 6 Del. C. § 2533(a) — 5 cases
Acxiom Corp. v. Axiom, Inc., 27 F. Supp. 2d 478 (D. Del. 1998).
“” 6 Del. C. §§ 2533(a). As discussed above, based on trademark infringement, the court finds that Acxiom is entitled to injunctive relief and the court will be issuing an order to that effect.”
Clontech Labs., Inc. v. Invitrogen Corp., 263 F. Supp. 2d 780 (D. Del. 2003).
“In this case, plaintiff and defendant were both competitors in the HRT market and plaintiff could reasonably expect to be damaged by defendant’s false representations as required by 6 Del. C. § 2533(a). 26. However, the court further concludes that with respect to plaintiffs…”
Hsmy, Inc. v. Getty Petroleum Mktg., Inc., 417 F. Supp. 2d 617 (D. Del. 2006).
“” 6 Del. C. § 2533(a). Accepting all allegations in Plaintiffs Amended Complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court *623 concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted under the…”
— 6 Del. C. § 2533(b) — 3 cases
— 6 Del. C. § 2533(c) — 3 cases
Truinject Corp. v. Galderma S.A. (D. Del. 2024).
“6 Del. C. § 2533(c). Because Truinject has no damages on its underlying claim, Truinject cannot receive damages under the DTPA.”
— 6 Del. C. § 2533(d) — 1 case
Worldspan L.P. v. Ultimate Living Grp., LLC, 390 F. Supp. 2d 412 (D. Del. 2005).
“) However, subsection (d) is a grant of standing to Delaware’s Attorney General to bring actions under the DTPA, 6 Del. C. § 2533(d), and does not confer standing on Plaintiff in this case.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.