Source: cases/15usc1125/f-supp-3d-383-343-ep-henry-v-cambridge-pavers.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_383/0343_01/index.html
The Court finds that Cambridge's allegations about EP Henry's statements regarding the "beauty" of its products are subjective unprovable statements and, therefore, constitute non-actionable puffery.
These statements of superiority are non-actionable under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
Whether these statements about the lifetime durability and quality of its pavers are false is plausibly demonstrable by objective testing and analysis of the products, and therefore actionable at this stage.
Again, statements of side-by-side comparisons of the attributes of competitive products are generally statements of fact, testable by comparative research, and therefore actionable at this stage of the pleadings.
casedsl 1.2
# author: Flash3 (gemini-3.8-flash-high)
# triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10)
case /f-supp-3d/383/0343-01
name EP Henry Corp. v. Cambridge Pavers, Inc.
cite 383 F. Supp. 3d 343 (2019)
court United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
date 2019-04-18
url catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_383/0343_01/index.html
source ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_383.jsonl sha1=bbab54f310374196b34a4117f0b18bf606b83ce2 chars=24567
opinion op : order by Simandle @40..24567 controlling
party p1 : EP Henry Corporation (counterclaim-defendant; the claimant is counterclaimant Cambridge Pavers)
count c1 : counterclaim: "beauty" and "best"/superiority statements
count c2 : counterclaim: remaining durability, performance and comparative statements
law 15usc1125 (a)(1)(B)
role applied
posture civil false advertising counterclaim under Lanham Act ยง 43(a)(1)(B) by competitor Cambridge against EP Henry; EP Henry's Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings granted as to eight listed statements (puffery) and denied as to the rest
result mixed
element false-fact : not-satisfied [law]
party p1
count c1
route puffery
pattern paver maker's "unrivaled beauty", "the best", "a step above the rest" slogans
fact @13475..13700 [supports] | Specifically, EP Henry states that it creates pavers of "unrivaled beauty," that its pavers have "beauty ... to last a lifetime," and that EP Henry uses a process that "intensifies beauty," and sets the "standard for beauty."
fact @14259..14487 [cuts-against] | Thus, when EP Henry represents that its products are the "best," or that its "Authorized Hardscaping Distributors are the best," it represents the type of exaggerated statement regularly made by companies, which is unverifiable.
fact @14488..14692 [cuts-against] | Furthermore, its statement that Durafacing is "a step above the rest" and that "nothing surpasses" its pavers, equally represent statements of mere puffery pertaining to EP Henry's own subjective opinion.
rule @11196..11295 [quoted] | "Puffery is an exaggeration or overstatement expressed in broad, vague, and commendatory language."
held @13275..13474 | The Court finds that Cambridge's allegations about EP Henry's statements regarding the "beauty" of its products are subjective unprovable statements and, therefore, constitute non-actionable puffery.
held @14693..14782 | These statements of superiority are non-actionable under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
gloss District court holds statements touting unrivaled beauty and unqualified "best"/superiority are subjective, non-verifiable puffery as a matter of law; judgment on the pleadings granted as to eight listed statements.
? polarity: the first fact is the challenged statement itself, tagged supports as the claimant's pleaded representation; the two "best"/"step above" sentences carry the court's own characterisation (unverifiable, subjective opinion) and are tagged cuts-against
element false-fact : satisfied [pleaded]
party p1
count c2
route puffery
pattern measurable attribute claims (slip/stain resistance, lifetime durability) and competitor comparisons tied to a proprietary process
fact @19766..20100 [supports] | Finally, EP Henry's representations that its pavers, "provide a slip-resistant walking surface," "provide a non-skid, non-slip surface that is safer," and are "stain resistant," are statements of fact that explicitly address attributes of EP Henry's pavers that are important to customers and, furthermore, are potentially measurable.
fact @20729..20877 [supports] | Moreover, a number of EP Henry's allegedly-false claims are made in comparison to another competitor's technology, including Cambridge's "Armortec."
fact @16944..17095 [supports] | Thus, EP Henry combines certain representations about its pavers with claims about its superior manufacturing process that "only EP Henry" can provide.
fact @22320..22449 [cuts-against] | The Court recognizes that any individual consumer might disregard EP Henry's statements as exaggerations or vague overstatements.
rule @11812..12012 [quoted] | "[U]nlike puffery, 'false claims that explicitly or implicitly address product attributes of importance to customers and make statements that are measurable by comparative research are not puffery.' "
held @19558..19765 | Whether these statements about the lifetime durability and quality of its pavers are false is plausibly demonstrable by objective testing and analysis of the products, and therefore actionable at this stage.
held @21374..21586 | Again, statements of side-by-side comparisons of the attributes of competitive products are generally statements of fact, testable by comparative research, and therefore actionable at this stage of the pleadings.
gloss Only the fact-versus-puffery question is decided; falsity is assumed under Rule 12(c) ("no such finding is made at this time"). Specific, testable attribute claims and comparative claims, read in the context of the proprietary-process advertising, plausibly are statements of fact.