O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 (2019)

Annotations

Law reviews. For article, “Do’s and Don’ts When Han-

dling a Product Liability Matter in Georgia,” see 25 Ga. St. B.J. 17 (Aug. 2019).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Analogy with Lanham Act. - In an action by a manufacturer against a competitor under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) for trade dress infringement, it was error to apply the statute of limitations in the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-390 et seq., since the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.C.G.A. 10-1-370 et seq., is the proper analogous statute to apply for such purpose. Kason Indus. v. Component Hdwe. Group, 120 F.3d 1199, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 22846 (11th Cir. 1997). Statute of limitations. - Four-year period of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-31 was applicable for purposes of the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.C.G.A. 10-1-370 et seq., not the 20-year period of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22. Kason Indus. v. Component Hdwe. Group, 120 F.3d

1199, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 22846 (11th Cir. 1997). No valid claim. - When an employee resigned while in the process of trying to obtain certain business for the employer, and the employee formed a company, which later obtained this business, the employer did not show that the employee violated the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 et seq., because the employer did not show that the employee caused any confusion as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services. Looney v. M-Squared, Inc., 262 Ga. App. 499, 586 S.E.2d 44, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 875 (2003), cert. denied, No. S03C1783, 2003 Ga. LEXIS 1032 (Ga. Nov. 17, 2003). Standing. - Company’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) made applicable in bankruptcy through

SELLING/OTHER TRADE PRACTICES

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012, was denied because nothing in the language of Georgia’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 et seq., required the debtor to be a consumer or required a consumer to be injured; therefore, the “consumer” issue was irrelevant to standing under the UDTPA. Johnston Indus. Ala., Inc. v. Nat’l Contract Assocs. (In re Johnston Indus.), 300 B.R. 821, 2003 Bankr. LEXIS 1384 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2003). Sovereign immunity barred claims against Georgia Lottery Corporation. - Trial court erred in denying the Georgia Lottery Corporation’s motion to dismiss the appellee’s claim under Georgia’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 et seq., as the appellee’s UDTPA claim for injunctive relief against the Georgia Lottery Corporation was barred by sovereign immunity because the UDTPA did not expressly waive the state’s sovereign immunity; did not specifically create a cause of action against the state; and exempted conduct in compliance with a statute administered by a state agency, and the Georgia Lottery Corporation was a state agency created by statute to administer the lottery. Ga. Lottery Corp. v. Patel, 353 Ga. App. 320, 836 S.E.2d 634, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 688 (2019). Amended complaint alleging violation of Georgia Deceptive Trade Practices Act granted. - In an action in which an interexchange carrier asserted the carrier was not obligated to pay fees to a local carrier for misrepresented toll-free cell calls, an amendment to add claims alleging violations under the Georgia RICO Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq., common law fraud, and the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 et seq., was not futile given the court’s denial of summary judgment on the local carrier’s counterclaims. ITC Deltacom Communs. v. US LEC Corp., No. 3:02-CV-116-JTC, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27557 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 15, 2004). Unfair insurance practices not subject to Georgia’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. - Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 10-1-374(a)(1),

insurance transactions are exempt from Georgia’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 et seq. Claims of unfair trade practices in insurance transactions are instead governed by the Georgia Insurance Code. Northeast Ga. Cancer Care, LLC v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ga., Inc., 297 Ga. App. 28, 676 S.E.2d 428, 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 350 (2009), cert. denied, No. S09C1241, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 805 (Ga. Sept. 28, 2009). Trade name infringement. - Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 et seq., provides for injunctive relief to prevent damage caused by a deceptive trade practice, including the use of a confusingly similar trade name which infringes on a protected trade name. Relief may be obtained from the deceptive practice, whether or not the protected trade name was registered, and without proof that the alleged infringer intended to deceive the public by causing confusion. Inkaholiks Luxury Tattoos Georgia, LLC v. Parton, 324 Ga. App. 769, 751 S.E.2d 561, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 929 (2013). Residential mortgage transactions not covered. - In a suit asserting wrongful foreclosure and other claims, the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s claims asserting unfair business and deceptive trade practices because those statutory acts did not apply to residential mortgage transactions. Marques v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 370 Ga. App. 305, 896 S.E.2d 1, 2023 Ga. App. LEXIS 552 (2023). Dismissal when injunction would serve no purpose as information on dark web. - Patients’ claim under the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 et seq., was properly dismissed because, pretermitting whether the patients alleged an unfair trade practice, an injunction would serve no purpose because the patients’ personal information was already sold and was available on the dark web. Collins v. Athens Orthopedic Clinic, 356 Ga. App. 776, 849 S.E.2d 213, 2020 Ga. App. LEXIS 524 (2020).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. Proof of Facts. False Advertising Under Lanham Act § 43(a)(1)(B), 44 POF3d 1. U.L.A. Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (1966 Revision) (U.L.A.) § 6. ALR. Right to private action under state consumer protection act - Equitable relief available, 115 A.L.R.5th 709. Unfair or Deceptive Mortgage Fees Under State Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practice Laws, 60 A.L.R. 7th 1.

Enforceability of trial period plans (TPP) under the home affordable modification program (HAMP), 88 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 331. What Matters Not Contained in Pleadings may be Considered in Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Motion for Judgment on Pleadings Under Rule 12(c) without Conversion to Motion for Summary Judgment - Sixth Circuit, 77 A.L.R. Fed. 3d 2.