[§481A-4] Remedies.
406 words·~2 min read·
/hi/481a-4A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
[§481A-4] Remedies.
(a)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.
(b)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 which the party knew to be groundless, or
(2)the party charged with a deceptive trade practice has wilfully engaged in the trade practice knowing it to be deceptive.
(c)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. [L 1969, c 187, pt of §1; gen ch 1985]
Case Notes
Plaintiffs alleged that by packaging and marketing defendant's snack as originating from Hawaii, defendant, a snack food manufacturer, violated the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practice Act (UDTPA) because the snacks were, in fact, manufactured on the mainland. In addition, plaintiffs sought injunctive relief pursuant to this section in order to prevent defendant from continuing to engage in wrongful acts and business practices. However, the court was unconvinced that plaintiffs adequately pled a UDTPA claim. 407 F. Supp. 3d 953 (2019).
Where there was no evidence in the record that plaintiffs knew that their claim under this chapter was "groundless", as required for an award of attorneys' fees under subsection (b), trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for attorneys' fees and costs under this section. 98 H. 309, 47 P.3d 1222.
Where plaintiffs' claims were based on a common core of facts, occurred roughly within the same two-month span of time, and were based on similar legal theories, such that it appeared that counsels' time was devoted largely to the litigation as a whole and not divisible into discrete slivers neatly matching each claim advanced, and the trial judge was in the best position to assess the reasonableness of counsels' actions, trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fifty per cent of the attorneys' fees requested by plaintiffs. 116 H. 42 (App.), 169 P.3d 994.