§
Subdivision 1.Injunctive relief.
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.
§
Subd. 2.Costs and attorney fees.
Costs shall be allowed to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs. The court may award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party if (1) the party complaining of a deceptive trade practice has brought an action knowing it to be groundless, or (2) the party charged with a deceptive trade practice has willfully engaged in the trade practice knowing it to be deceptive.
§
Subd. 3.Remedies cumulative.
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.
Notes of Decisions
Dennis Simmons D.D.S., P.A. v. Modern Aero, Inc. (1999)
minnctapp · cites it 10×
“” Minn.Stat. § 325D.45, subd. 1. The legislature granted to the courts the discretion to only award an injunction against such deceptive trade practices, specifically limiting this relief “under the principles of equity.”
VanDanacker v. Main Motor Sales Co. (2000)
mnd · cites it 8×
“§ 1927 , Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court’s inherent authority to sanction (Defendant Norwest also seeks sanctions pursuant to the provisions of Minn.Stat. § 325D.45). Defendants seek sanctions based upon Plaintiffs’ allegedly improper conduct…”
Alsides v. Brown Institute, Ltd. (1999)
minnctapp · cites it 4×
“” Minn.Stat. § 325D.45, subd. 1. The relief provided under the act “is in addition to remedies otherwise available against the same conduct under the common law or other-statutes.”
Watkins Incorporated v. Lloyd M. Lewis and Sandra G. Lewis (2003)
ca8
“The statute does, as the Lewises point out, permit relief against deceptive trade practices regardless of damages or other remedies available at law, Minn.Stat. § 325D.45, subd. 1, 3. Relief under the statute is to be granted a courts’ discretion “under the principles of equity.”
Tatone v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. (2012)
mnd · cites it 2×
“See Minn. Stat. § 325D.45, subd. 1 (describing the remedies available for violations of the DTPA, damages not available); Minn.”
Superior Edge, Inc. v. Monsanto Co. (2013)
mnd · cites it 2×
“1999) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Minn.Stat. § 325D.45, subd. 1 (“A person likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice of another may be granted an injunction against it.”
Mid-List Press v. Nora (2003)
mnd · cites it 6×
“Minn. Stat. § 325D.45 Subd. 1. The Act also allows an award of costs and attorney’s fees to the prevailing party, in the court’s discretion.”
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Alpine Air Products, Inc. (1993)
minn · cites it 2×
“We believe this elimination of elements indicates that the legislature intended that the burden of proof in a consumer fraud case would be the preponderance of the evidence standard. We will not impute, to the legislature the strange goal of making it easier to sue for consumer…”
Toth v. Arason (2006)
minn · cites it 4×
“[8] In his amended complaint, Toth alleged very generally that Arason violated the Deceptive Trade Practices Act; Toth did not, however, raise Minn.Stat. § 325D.45 (2004) before either the court of appeals or this court.”
— Minn. Stat. § 325D.45(1) — 2 cases
— Minn. Stat. § 325D.45(3) — 1 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.