O.C.G.A. § 10-1-362 (2019)

Annotations

Cross references. Misidentification of onions as Vidalia onions, § 2-14-130 et seq. Restrictions on sale of goods manufactured by inmates of county correctional institutions, § 42-5-60.

Law reviews. For note on 1995 amendments and enactments of sections in this article, see 12 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 31 (1995).

PART 1 UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT Law reviews. For article discussing available remedies in this state for deceptive trade practices, in light of the model Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law proposed in Georgia in 1973, see 10 Ga. St. B. J. 281 (1973).

For article explaining the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, proposed in Georgia in 1973, see 10 Ga. St. B. J. 409 (1974). For note discussing the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and consumer protection, see 25 Emory L. J. 445 (1976).

SELLING/OTHER TRADE PRACTICES

For article, “Trademark Protection: Judicial Inconsistency in the Fifth Circuit,” see 32 Mercer L. Rev. 1167 (1981).

For article, “Corporate Software Piracy: Is Your Client (or Your Firm) Liable?,” see 22 Ga. St. B. J. 30 (1985).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Crux of complaint based on this part is likelihood of confusion between goods. Rolls-Royce Motors, Ltd. v. A & A Fiberglass, Inc., 428 F. Supp. 689, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12523 (N.D. Ga. 1976); Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 18834 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899, 101 S. Ct. 268, 66 L. Ed. 2d 129, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 3487 (1980). Consumer’s failure to show the plaintiff had to establish a likelihood of damage to the plaintiff by an automobile dealer’s fraudulent practices made summary judgment denying the plaintiff’s claim under the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 et seq., proper. Catrett v. Landmark Dodge, Inc., 253 Ga. App. 639, 560 S.E.2d 101, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 168 (2002). Requirements for injunctive relief under O.C.G.A. Pt. 1, Art. 15, Ch. 1, T. 10 are less stringent than under any other sections dealing with protection of trade names and trademarks. Giant Mart Corp. v. Giant Disct. Foods, Inc., 247 Ga. 775, 279 S.E.2d 683, 1981 Ga. LEXIS 877 (1981). Standing. - Patentee of a weight loss

drug who had not produced or marketed a weight control product, and was not a person likely to be damaged by the practices of alleged competitors, lacked standing to bring suit under the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practice Act, O.C.G.A. Pt. 1, Art. 15, Ch. 1, T. 10. Friedlander v. HMS-PEP Prods., 226 Ga. App. 123, 485 S.E.2d 240, 1997 Ga. App. LEXIS 454 (1997), cert. denied, No. S97C1268, 1997 Ga. LEXIS 851 (Ga. Oct. 3, 1997). No basis for claim. - See Yarway Corp. v. Eur-Control USA, Inc., 775 F.2d 268, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 15284 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.C.G.A. Pt. 1, Art. 15, Ch. 1, T. 10, did not apply to an action by students against schools and student loan guarantors based on allegations that the schools recruited the students, induced the students to sign up for federally guaranteed student loans, and then failed to provide the promised quality of education or job placement. Bartels v. Alabama Commer. College, 918 F. Supp. 1565, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20447 (S.D. Ga. 1995), aff’d in part, rev’d, 189 F.3d 483, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 19902 (11th Cir. 1999).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 54A Am. Jur. 2d, Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, and Unfair Trade Practices, §§ 1104, 1106. C.J.S. 87 C.J.S., Trade-Marks, Trade-Names, and Unfair Competition, § 434 et seq. ALR. Right to protection against simulation of physical appearance or arrangement of place of business or vehicle, 17 A.L.R. 784; 28 A.L.R. 114. Application of principles of unfair competition to artistic or library property, 19 A.L.R. 949. Seller’s advertisements as affecting

rights of parties to sale of personal property, 28 A.L.R. 991; 158 A.L.R. 1413. Former employee’s duty, in absence of express contract, not to solicit former employer’s customers or otherwise use his knowledge of customer lists acquired in earlier employment, 28 A.L.R.3d 7. Unfair competition: geographical extent of protection of word or symbol under doctrine of secondary meaning, 41 A.L.R.3d 434. Validity, construction, and effect of state legislation regulating or controlling “baitand-switch” or “disparagement” advertising or sales practices, 50 A.L.R.3d 1008. Validity of express statutory grant of

T.10, C.1, A.15, P.1

power to state to seek, or to court to grant, restitution of fruits of consumer fraud, 59 A.L.R.3d 1222. Use of “family name” by corporation as unfair competition, 72 A.L.R.3d 8. Scope and exceptions of state deceptive trade practice and consumer protection Acts, 85 A.L.R.3d 399. Trade dress simulation of cosmetic products as unfair competition, 86 A.L.R.3d 505. Unfair competition by imitation in sign or design of business place, 86 A.L.R.3d 884. Practices forbidden by state deceptive trade practice and consumer protection Acts, 89 A.L.R.3d 449.

When statute of limitations commences to run on action under state deceptive trade practice or consumer protection acts, 18 A.L.R.4th 1340. Award of attorneys’ fees in actions under state deceptive trade practice and consumer protection acts, 35 A.L.R.4th 12. Implied warranty coverage for service transactions under state consumer protection and deceptive trade statutes, 72 A.L.R.4th 282. Coverage of leases under state consumer protection statutes, 89 A.L.R.4th 854.