Source: cases/15usc1125/f-supp-3d-371-355-outlaw-laboratory-v-shenoor.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_371/0355_01/index.html
To qualify as a statement made in the context of commercial advertising or promotion, the representation should be made for "the purpose of influencing consumers to buy defendant's goods or services" and "disseminated sufficiently to the relevant purchasing public."
The Court instead holds that in this case the Retail Defendants cannot be held liable for false advertising based solely on allegations that they displayed and sold the Rhino Products in their stores.
And, as the Baldino's court reasoned, displaying an advertisement created by a third party should not be considered, in itself, the making of a false statement under the Lanham Act.
The Court holds that Plaintiff's complaint fails to sufficiently allege that Defendants made a false statement in the context of commercial advertising or promotion.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash3 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f-supp-3d/371/0355-01 name Outlaw Lab., LP v. Shenoor Enter., Inc. cite 371 F. Supp. 3d 355 (2019) court United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas date 2019-03-04 url catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_371/0355_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_371.jsonl sha1=0dd376934d667d68f60f21b78e91cc6aef29344b chars=42151 opinion op : order by Boyle @44..42151 controlling party p1 : Retail Defendants (convenience stores) count c1 : false advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B) law 15usc1125 (a)(1)(B) role applied posture civil false advertising action under Lanham Act § 43(a)(1)(B) by a competing supplement maker against retail convenience stores; Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss granted with leave to amend; standing (Article III traceability, Lexmark proximate cause) flagged but expressly not ruled on result claimant-lost element commercial-promotion : not-satisfied [pleaded] party p1 count c1 route passive-retail-display pattern convenience stores shelving and selling a third-party manufacturer's falsely labelled supplement, no advertising of their own alleged fact @18411..18639 [supports] | But these individualized allegations do no more than allege that the Retail Defendant "owns and operates" a store at a certain address and "promotes, advertises, disseminates and offers for sale" the Rhino Products at its store. fact @25192..25308 [cuts-against] | The Court agrees with Defendants-Plaintiff has alleged only that Retail Defendants sold the Rhino Products in store. fact @26545..26755 [cuts-against absent] | Applying that same reasoning in the context of this 12(b)(6) motion, there is nothing in the complaint that alleges the Retail Defendants here did anything more than passively offer the Rhino Products for sale. rule @16302..16568 | To qualify as a statement made in the context of commercial advertising or promotion, the representation should be made for "the purpose of influencing consumers to buy defendant's goods or services" and "disseminated sufficiently to the relevant purchasing public." held @34220..34420 | The Court instead holds that in this case the Retail Defendants cannot be held liable for false advertising based solely on allegations that they displayed and sold the Rhino Products in their stores. gloss Retailers who are alleged only to display and sell manufacturer-labelled products do not thereby "disseminate" advertising or promotion; the court leaves open retailer liability on fuller allegations and gave leave to replead. element false-fact : not-satisfied [pleaded] party p1 count c1 route maker-of-statement pattern false "all natural" labels created by a non-party manufacturer; retailers alleged only to resell, knowledge pleaded conclusorily fact @3482..3645 [supports] | the Rhino Products have labels stating they are "all natural," with "no harmful synthetic chemicals," do not require a prescription, and have limited side effects. fact @15442..15652 [cuts-against] | This argument is strong because it appears that the nonparty manufacturer of the Rhino Products created and made the false labels at issue; Plaintiff has only alleged that Retail Defendants sell these products. fact @18727..18824 [cuts-against] | What's more, the only false statements Plaintiff identifies are the labels on the Rhino Products. fact @33060..33205 [cuts-against absent] | Further, here, Plaintiff has provided only conclusory allegations that each Defendant had knowledge of the falsity of the Rhino Products' labels. rule @31582..31763 | And, as the Baldino's court reasoned, displaying an advertisement created by a third party should not be considered, in itself, the making of a false statement under the Lanham Act. held @15814..15979 | The Court holds that Plaintiff's complaint fails to sufficiently allege that Defendants made a false statement in the context of commercial advertising or promotion. gloss The falsity of the labels is taken as pleaded; what fails is attribution: the retailers did not make the labels' statements, and reselling a third party's mislabelled product is not the making of a false statement by the reseller. ? other: the court states one combined holding (no false statement made by defendants in commercial advertising or promotion); splitting it into a maker-of-statement block and a passive-retail-display block is the annotator's reading of the two strands of the reasoning