XML 66 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.2.0.727

Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
9. Contingencies | PODS Enterprises, Inc. v. U-Haul International, Inc. On July 3, 2012, PODS Enterprises, Inc. (“PEI”), filed a lawsuit against U-Haul International, Inc. (“U-Haul”), in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, alleging (1) Federal Trademark Infringement under Section 32 of the Lanham Act, (2) Federal Unfair Competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, (3) Federal Trademark dilution by blurring in violation of Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, (4) common law trademark infringement under Florida law, (5) violation o f the Florida Dilution; Injury to Business Reputation statute, (6) unfair competition and trade practices, false advertising and passing off under Florida common law, (7) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and (8) unjust enr ichment under Florida law. The claims arose from U-Haul’s use of the word “pod” and “pods” as a generic term for its U-Box moving and storage product. PEI alleged that such use is an inappropriate use of its PODS mark. Under the claims alleged in its Co mplaint, PEI sought a Court Order permanently enjoining U-Haul from: (1) the use of the PODS mark, or any other trade name or trademark confusingly similar to the mark; and (2) the use of any false descriptions or representations or committing any acts of unfair competition by using the PODS mark or any trade name or trademark confusingly similar to the mark. PEI also sought a Court Order (1) finding all of PEI’s trademarks valid and enforceable and (2) requiring U-Haul to alter all web pages to promptly re move the PODS mark from all websites owned or operated on behalf of U-Haul. Finally, PEI sought an award of damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but which are alleged to be approximately $70 million. PEI also sought pre-judgment interest, trebled da mages, and punitive damages. U-Haul does not believe that PEI’s claims have merit and vigorously defended the lawsuit. On September 17, 2012, U-Haul filed its Counterclaims, seeking a Court Order declaring that: (1) U-Haul’s use of the term “pods” or “po d” does not infringe or dilute PEI’s purported trademarks or violate any of PEI’s purported rights; (2) The purported mark “PODS” is not a valid, protectable, or registrable trademark; and (3) The purported mark “PODS PORTABLE ON DEMAND STORAGE” is not a v alid, protectable, or registrable trademark. U-Haul also sought a Court Order cancelling the marks at issue in the case. The case was tried to an 8-person jury, beginning on September 8, 2014. On September 19, 2014, the Court granted U-Haul’s motion for d irected verdict on the issue of punitive damages. The Court deferred ruling on U-Haul’s motion for directed verdict on its defense that the words “pod” and “pods” were generic terms for a container used for the moving and storage of goods at the time PEI obtained its trademark (“genericness defense”). Closing arguments were on September 22, 2014. On September 25, 2014, the jury returned a unanimous verdict, finding in favor of PEI and against U-Haul on all claims and counterclaims. The jury awarded PEI $45 million in actual damages and $15.7 million in U-Haul’s alleged profits attributable to its use of the term “pod” or “pods”. On October 1, 2014, the Court ordered briefing on U-Haul’s oral motion for directed verdict on its genericness defense, the mo tion on which the Court had deferred ruling during trial. Pursuant to the Court’s order, the parties’ briefing on that motion was completed by October 21, 2014. On March 11, 2015, the Court denied U-Haul’s Renewed Motion for Directed Verdict, For Judgment as a Matter of Law, Or in the Alternative, Motion for a New Trial. Also on March 11, 2015, the Court entered Judgment on the jury verdict in favor of PEI and against U-Haul in the amount of $60.7 million. The parties have filed a series of post-Judgment m otions: On March 25, 2015, PEI filed a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses in the amount of $6.5 million. On April 27, 2015, U-Haul filed its opposition brief to that motion. On March 25, 2015, PEI filed a Proposed Bill of Costs in the amount of $186,411. On April 14, 2015, U-Haul filed an opposition to PEI’s proposed bill of costs. On May 1, 2015, PEI filed an amended bill of costs, in the amount of $196,133. On April 6, 2015, U-Haul filed, with PEI’s consent, a motion to stay execut ion of the Judgment, pending the trial court’s rulings on U-Haul’s post-Judgment motions. That motion was supported by a supersedeas bond in the amount of $60.9 million, which represents 100% of the Judgment plus post-Judgment interest at the rate of 0.25% per year for 18 months. PEI and U-Haul both reserved the right to modify the amount of the bond in the event the Judgment is modified by the Court’s rulings on the parties’ post-Judgment motions (described below). On April 7, 2015, the Court granted U-H aul’s motion on consent, staying the Judgment pending rulings on U-Haul’s post-Judgment motions. On April 8, 2015, U-Haul filed its Renewed Motion for Judgment As Matter of Law, or in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial, or to Alter the Judgment. U-Hau l argued that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because even when all evidence is viewed in PEI’s favor, it was legally insufficient for the jury to find for PEI. Alternatively, U-Haul argued that it is entitled to a new trial because the verd ict is against the weight of the evidence. Alternatively, U-Haul argued that the Court should reduce the damages and profits award under principles of equity. On April, 27, 2015, PEI filed its opposition brief. On April 8, 2015, PEI filed a Motion to Amen d the Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), in which it asked that the Judgment be amended to include (i) the entry of a permanent injunction; (ii) an award of pre-Judgment interest in the amount of $4.9 million; (iii) an award of post-Judgment inter est in the amount of $11,441 and continuing to accrue at the rate of 0.25% while the case proceeds; (iv) doubling of the damages award to $121.4 million; and (v) the entry of an order directing the Patent and Trademark Office to dismiss the cancellation pr oceedings that U-Haul filed, which sought cancellation of the PODS trademarks. On April 27, 2015, U-Haul filed its opposition brief arguing, among other things, that (1) PEI is not entitled to recover double the windfall the jury incorrectly awarded it; (2) PEI is not entitled to the overreaching injunction it seeks; (3) PEI is not entitled to pre-judgment interest; (4) PEI has overstated the amount of post-Judgment interest to which it is entitled; and (5) PEI’s request that the Court order the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to dismiss U-Haul’s cancellation proceeding is premature. On April 9, 2015, U-Haul filed a protective Notice of Appeal. We expect that this notice of appeal will be automatically stayed and will become effective upon the disposition of (1) U-Haul’s renewed motion for judgment or a new trial or alteration of the Judgment or (2) PEI’s motion to alter or amend the Judgment, whichever comes later. As of June 30, 2015, the parties’ post-Judgement motions remain before the trial court for decision. Environmental Compliance with environmental requirements of federal, state and local governments may significantly affect Real Estate’s business operations. Among other things, these requirements regulate the discharge of materials into the air, land and water and govern the use and disposal of hazardous substances. Real Estate is aware of issues regarding hazardous substances on some of its properties. Real Estate regularly makes capital and operating expenditures to stay in compliance with envi ronmental laws and has put in place a remedial plan at each site where it believes such a plan is necessary. Since 1988, Real Estate has managed a testing and removal program for underground storage tanks. Based upon the information currently available to Real Estate, compliance with the environmental laws and its share of the costs of investigation and cleanup of known hazardous waste sites are not expected to result in a material adverse effect on AMERCO’s financial position or results of operations. Othe r We are named as a defendant in various other litigation and claims arising out of the normal course of business. In management’s opinion, none of these other matters will have a material effect on our financial position and results of operations.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration