(a) A person likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice of another may bring an action for, and the court may grant, an injunction under the principles of equity against the person committing the deceptive trade practice. The court may order such additional equitable relief as it deems necessary to protect the public from further violations, including temporary and permanent injunctive relief. 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) Costs shall be allowed to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs. The court in its discretion may award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party if (1) the party complaining of a deceptive trade practice has brought an action which he or she knew 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.
(c) A claim filed for a violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act shall be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
(d) 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.
(e) Subdivision (a)(13) of section 87-302 shall not be construed to authorize a civil action against an interactive computer service, provider of telecommunications service, or cable operator for the actions of an information content provider.
Notes of Decisions
State ex rel. Peterson v. Creative Comm. Promotions (2019)
neb · cites it 5×
“CCP claims that the district court should have awarded it attorney fees pursuant to two different statutes, §§ 87-303(b) and 59-1608(1). Section 87-303(b) provides as follows: Costs shall be allowed to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.”
JB & Assocs. v. Nebraska Cancer Coalition (2019)
neb · cites it 4×
“" Section 87-303(a) describes that a person likely to be damaged by the alleged deceptive trade practice may seek an injunction against the person disparaging the petitioner's goods, services, or business.”
Sid Dillon Chevrolet-Oldsmobile-Pontiac, Inc. v. Sullivan (1997)
neb · cites it 8×
“In pertinent part, § 87-303(a) provides: "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.”
Reinbrecht v. Walgreen Co. (2007)
nebctapp · cites it 4×
“The UDTPA, specifically § 87-303, does not provide a private right of action for damages.”
WWP, INC. v. Wounded Warriors, Inc. (2008)
ned · cites it 2×
“As mentioned above, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 87-303(a) states that “[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.”
Wrist-Rocket Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Saunders (1974)
ned · cites it 4×
“Section 87-303(a), Neb.R.R.S.1943. As to any other damages that Saunders Archery Company may have incurred from plaintiff’s use of the mark from January 19, 1972, 9 to the present, *924 the Court will hear evidence thereon at a time to be set by further order of the Court.”
Richdale Development Co. v. McNeil Co. (1993)
neb · cites it 2×
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-303 (b) (Reissue 1987) provides that “[t]he court in its discretion may award attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party if .”
State Ex Rel. Stenberg v. CONSUMER'S CHOICE FOODS, INC. (2008)
neb
“§ 87-303. The amount of damages to be awarded is a determination solely for the fact finder, and its action in this respect will not be disturbed on appeal if it is supported by evidence and bears a reasonable relationship to the elements of the damages proved.”
Warner v. Reagan Buick, Inc. (1992)
neb · cites it 2×
“We note that no complaint is made of the award of attorney fees, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-303 (Reissue 1987) of the Nebraska Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-303(a) — 16 cases
JB & Assocs. v. Nebraska Cancer Coalition (2019)
neb
“" Section 87-303(a) describes that a person likely to be damaged by the alleged deceptive trade practice may seek an injunction against the person disparaging the petitioner's goods, services, or business.”
Sid Dillon Chevrolet-Oldsmobile-Pontiac, Inc. v. Sullivan (1997)
neb
“In pertinent part, § 87-303(a) provides: "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.”
Reinbrecht v. Walgreen Co. (2007)
nebctapp
“The UDTPA, specifically § 87-303, does not provide a private right of action for damages.”
WWP, INC. v. Wounded Warriors, Inc. (2008)
ned
“As mentioned above, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 87-303(a) states that “[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.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-303(b) — 7 cases
State ex rel. Peterson v. Creative Comm. Promotions (2019)
neb
“CCP claims that the district court should have awarded it attorney fees pursuant to two different statutes, §§ 87-303(b) and 59-1608(1). Section 87-303(b) provides as follows: Costs shall be allowed to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.”
Sid Dillon Chevrolet-Oldsmobile-Pontiac, Inc. v. Sullivan (1997)
neb
“In pertinent part, § 87-303(a) provides: "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.”
Wrist-Rocket Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Saunders (1974)
ned
“Section 87-303(a), Neb.R.R.S.1943. As to any other damages that Saunders Archery Company may have incurred from plaintiff’s use of the mark from January 19, 1972, 9 to the present, *924 the Court will hear evidence thereon at a time to be set by further order of the Court.”
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.