A. Any person damaged or likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice of another may maintain an action in any court of equitable jurisdiction to prevent, restrain or enjoin such deceptive trade practice. Proof of actual monetary damages, loss of profits or intent shall not be required. If in such action damages are
alleged and proved, the plaintiff, in addition to injunctive relief, shall be entitled to recover from the defendant the actual damages sustained by the person. B. With respect to the deceptive trade practices described in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of subsection A of Section 53 of this title, the Attorney General or a district attorney of this state is authorized to bring actions seeking the following relief: 1. Injunctions directed against persons engaged in such deceptive trade practices; 2. Recovery of the money unlawfully received from aggrieved consumers by persons engaged in the deceptive trade practices to be held in escrow for distribution to the aggrieved consumers; and 3. Recovery by the state of the reasonable expenses incurred in the investigation of the deceptive trade practices. C. In any action instituted under the provisions of the Oklahoma Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the court may, in its discretion, award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party. If in any such action the court finds either (1) that the defendant has willfully engaged in a deceptive trade practice or (2) that the plaintiff has acted in bad faith in instituting the action, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party. D. The relief provided for in this section is in addition to and not in exclusion of remedies otherwise available against the same conduct pursuant to the common law or other statutes of this state. E. Any duly organized and existing trade association, whether incorporated or not, is hereby authorized to institute and prosecute a suit or suits for injunctive relief hereunder as the real party in interest, for or on behalf of one or more of its members, when a deceptive trade practice directly or indirectly affects or threatens to affect or injure such member or members. Added by Laws 1965, c. 234, § 4. Amended by Laws 1998, c. 162, § 3, eff. July 1, 1998; Laws 2021, c. 559, § 27, emerg. eff. May 28, 2021.
Notes of Decisions
Inergy Propane, LLC v. Lundy, 2009 OK CIV APP 8, 219 P.3d 547.
“" [17] Although this is not a trade secret case, granting injunctive relief to enforce a non-solicitation agreement finds support in 78 O.S.2001 § 54(a), which provides: "Any person damaged or likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice of another may maintain an action…”
Cent. Plastics Co. v. Goodson, 537 P.2d 330 (Okla. 1975).
“Remedies under the Act, 78 O.S.1971 § 54(a) provide: “Any person damaged or likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice of another may maintain an action in any court of equitable jurisdiction to prevent, restrain or enjoin such deceptive trade practice.”
Get Bak'd Okc v. Releaf Labs, 2023 OK CIV APP 45.
· cites it 2× “" 78 O.S.2021 § 54(A). "It is a deceptive trade practice to misappropriate the trade name of another.”
Wilspec Tech. Inc v. Rugao Isen Elec. Co Ltd (W.D. Okla. 2019).
“§ 1117 (a); see also Okla. Stat. tit. 78, § 54 (A) (allowing recovery of actual damages sustained as a result of the deceptive trade practice of another).”
Alert 360 OPCO, Inc. v. LA Alarms LLC (N.D. Okla. 2025).
“§ 1125 (a); (2) common law trademark infringement; (3) common law unfair competition; (4) violation of the Oklahoma Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 78, § 54 (A); (5) common law malicious/tortious interference with a contract; (6) negligent supervision and…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 78, § 54(A): 1 case
Get Bak'd Okc v. Releaf Labs, 2023 OK CIV APP 45.
“" 78 O.S.2021 § 54(A). "It is a deceptive trade practice to misappropriate the trade name of another.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 78, § 54(a): 2 cases
Inergy Propane, LLC v. Lundy, 2009 OK CIV APP 8, 219 P.3d 547.
“" [17] Although this is not a trade secret case, granting injunctive relief to enforce a non-solicitation agreement finds support in 78 O.S.2001 § 54(a), which provides: "Any person damaged or likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice of another may maintain an action…”
Cent. Plastics Co. v. Goodson, 537 P.2d 330 (Okla. 1975).
“Remedies under the Act, 78 O.S.1971 § 54(a) provide: “Any person damaged or likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice of another may maintain an action in any court of equitable jurisdiction to prevent, restrain or enjoin such deceptive trade practice.”
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.