United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019-06-28
15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: Interlocutory appeal from denial of preliminary injunction on challenged advertisements; findings concern likelihood of success, not final merits.; result: claimant-lost; claim:
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
The DSL has no provisional-merits scope or preliminary-evidence basis. Procedural scope excludes all preliminary-injunction blocks from instances; no-evidence denotes insufficient proof at that hearing only. IR court label Six Circuit corrected to Sixth Circuit.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 17
| Case | Statutory person including state entities and officials | Judicial domestic infringing-use limit | Use in commerce connected with goods or services | Enforceable source-identifying mark or trade dress | Likely consumer confusion about source or sponsorship | Entitlement to sue and protected commercial interest |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| La.-Pac. Corp. v. James Hardie Bldg. Prods., Inc. — 928 F.3d 514 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 17
| Case | Good-faith descriptive use other than as a mark | State sovereign immunity unless a valid route permits suit | Misleading affiliation approval or sponsorship | Claimant proves nonfunctionality | Commercial advertising or promotion | False or misleading factual representation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| La.-Pac. Corp. v. James Hardie Bldg. Prods., Inc. — 928 F.3d 514 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | ✗ not · no-evidenceNot counted: applied/procedural ✗ not · no-evidenceNot counted: applied/procedural ✗ not · lawNot counted: applied/procedural |
Elements 13–17 of 17
| Case | Judicial actual-deception or tendency-to-deceive requirement | Judicial materiality requirement for purchasing decisions | Judicial zone-of-interests limit to commercial injury | Judicial proximate-causation requirement | Remedy-specific proof |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| La.-Pac. Corp. v. James Hardie Bldg. Prods., Inc. — 928 F.3d 514 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | ✗ not · no-evidenceNot counted: applied/procedural | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | ✗ not · lawNot counted: applied/procedural |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| La.-Pac. Corp. v. James Hardie Bldg. Prods., Inc. — 928 F.3d 514 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | Judicial actual-deception or tendency-to-deceive requirement | not Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: no-evidence; count: Woodpecker imagery; subject: count=Woodpecker imagery Reach and persuasion evidence does not establish a false audience takeaway; this is not a holding that materiality failed. | misleading-truth/audience-reach-without-takeaway | Under the Lanham Act, if a statement is "literally false," we presume that it actually deceived consumers. Wysong Corp. v. APN , Inc. , 889 F.3d 267, 270-71 (6th Cir. 2018). If a statement is merely "misleading," then Louisiana-Pacific must prove that it deceived a "significant portion" of reasonable consumers. Id. at 271.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0514-01; Unicode character offsets [4125:4449] (end exclusive); SHA-256 581e8755e34bfb0778a01907d2df14e6053429105939aa3f3ee40fe1c1d76a68.Louisiana-Pacific adduced no such proof, instead relying on (1) testimony that Hardie intended the advertisements to affect consumer-purchasing decisions, (2) documentation that the campaign's advertisements reached a large audience, and (3) a Hardie study demonstrating that consumers rely on manufacturers' websites for product information, and that an ad featuring a woodpecker nesting in a hole would be more likely to persuade consumers than just a photo of a hole.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0514-01; Unicode character offsets [7731:8201] (end exclusive); SHA-256 581e8755e34bfb0778a01907d2df14e6053429105939aa3f3ee40fe1c1d76a68.Louisiana-Pacific therefore failed to carry its burden that the woodpecker imagery was misleading.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0514-01; Unicode character offsets [8457:8555] (end exclusive); SHA-256 581e8755e34bfb0778a01907d2df14e6053429105939aa3f3ee40fe1c1d76a68. |
| La.-Pac. Corp. v. James Hardie Bldg. Prods., Inc. — 928 F.3d 514 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | False or misleading factual representation | not Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: no-evidence; count: Woodpecker imagery; subject: count=Woodpecker imagery Insufficient preliminary-injunction showing of literal falsity; procedural scope prevents ingestion as final merits failure. | retouched-woodpecker-image | The agency incorporated one photograph into Hardie's "No Wood Is Good" campaign-sharpening the image's colors, darkening the interior of the hole to make it appear deeper, and superimposing a woodpecker.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0514-01; Unicode character offsets [4979:5182] (end exclusive); SHA-256 581e8755e34bfb0778a01907d2df14e6053429105939aa3f3ee40fe1c1d76a68.Louisiana-Pacific's corporate representative testified that the company had never tested its siding's woodpecker resilience, had no data to support any assertion "that our product is resistant to some level against woodpecker damage," and "can't say [woodpecker damage] won't happen .... [I]t's possible."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0514-01; Unicode character offsets [5955:6260] (end exclusive); SHA-256 581e8755e34bfb0778a01907d2df14e6053429105939aa3f3ee40fe1c1d76a68.Reasonable consumers know that marketing involves some level of exaggeration, and some amount of digital retouching to tell a story.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0514-01; Unicode character offsets [5426:5558] (end exclusive); SHA-256 581e8755e34bfb0778a01907d2df14e6053429105939aa3f3ee40fe1c1d76a68.Because Louisiana-Pacific proffered no evidence that the photographs misrepresent woodpecker behavior, see Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N.V.E., Inc. , 694 F.3d 723, 735-36 (6th Cir. 2012), it failed to satisfy its burden of proving literal falsity.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0514-01; Unicode character offsets [6664:6911] (end exclusive); SHA-256 581e8755e34bfb0778a01907d2df14e6053429105939aa3f3ee40fe1c1d76a68. |
| La.-Pac. Corp. v. James Hardie Bldg. Prods., Inc. — 928 F.3d 514 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | False or misleading factual representation | not Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: no-evidence; count: Subject to damage sentence; subject: count=Subject to damage sentence No final merits ruling; consumer interpretation of damage was not shown unambiguous. | ambiguous-termite-damage | But Louisiana-Pacific's own experts admitted that grazing results in some damage. And Louisiana-Pacific's warranty on its engineered-wood siding explicitly excludes non-structural termite damage.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0514-01; Unicode character offsets [11773:11968] (end exclusive); SHA-256 581e8755e34bfb0778a01907d2df14e6053429105939aa3f3ee40fe1c1d76a68.Our review thus requires that we ask whether reasonable consumers would interpret Hardie's use of the word "damage" to unambiguously mean structural damage.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0514-01; Unicode character offsets [11969:12125] (end exclusive); SHA-256 581e8755e34bfb0778a01907d2df14e6053429105939aa3f3ee40fe1c1d76a68.Thus, though testable, Louisiana-Pacific has not carried its burden to prove the claim literally false here.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0514-01; Unicode character offsets [13060:13168] (end exclusive); SHA-256 581e8755e34bfb0778a01907d2df14e6053429105939aa3f3ee40fe1c1d76a68. |
| La.-Pac. Corp. v. James Hardie Bldg. Prods., Inc. — 928 F.3d 514 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not · law (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | False or misleading factual representation | not Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: law; count: Pests Love It headline; subject: count=Pests Love It headline Only the headline is classified as puffery; the separate damage assertion is testable but ambiguous on this preliminary record. | pests-love-it | Just above the photo of the woodpecker, Hardie's advertisement notes that "Pests Love [engineered wood]," and, in smaller print, that such siding is "[s]ubject to damage caused by woodpeckers, termites and other pests that can harm wood."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0514-01; Unicode character offsets [8707:8945] (end exclusive); SHA-256 581e8755e34bfb0778a01907d2df14e6053429105939aa3f3ee40fe1c1d76a68.Puffery protects statements that reasonable consumers would not interpret as reliably factual.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0514-01; Unicode character offsets [9278:9372] (end exclusive); SHA-256 581e8755e34bfb0778a01907d2df14e6053429105939aa3f3ee40fe1c1d76a68.The district court found that the headline "Pests Love It," rather than literal falsity, amounts to puffery-unverifiable exaggeration to prove a point. We agree.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0514-01; Unicode character offsets [9116:9277] (end exclusive); SHA-256 581e8755e34bfb0778a01907d2df14e6053429105939aa3f3ee40fe1c1d76a68. |
| La.-Pac. Corp. v. James Hardie Bldg. Prods., Inc. — 928 F.3d 514 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not · law (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | Remedy-specific proof | not Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: law The appellate court declined to reconsider the other injunction factors after the likelihood-of-success failure. Liability and permanent relief remain unresolved. | no-likelihood-of-success | But our cases warn that a court must not issue a preliminary injunction where the movant presents no likelihood of merits success.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0514-01; Unicode character offsets [3233:3363] (end exclusive); SHA-256 581e8755e34bfb0778a01907d2df14e6053429105939aa3f3ee40fe1c1d76a68.Thus, the court's refusal to enter an injunction here could not amount to an abuse of its discretion. We AFFIRM.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0514-01; Unicode character offsets [14359:14471] (end exclusive); SHA-256 581e8755e34bfb0778a01907d2df14e6053429105939aa3f3ee40fe1c1d76a68. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
Under the Lanham Act, if a statement is "literally false," we presume that it actually deceived consumers. Wysong Corp. v. APN , Inc. , 889 F.3d 267, 270-71 (6th Cir. 2018). If a statement is merely "misleading," then Louisiana-Pacific must prove that it deceived a "significant portion" of reasonable consumers. Id. at 271.
La.-Pac. Corp. v. James Hardie Bldg. Prods., Inc. — 928 F.3d 514 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed)
Under the Lanham Act, if a statement is "literally false," we presume that it actually deceived consumers. Wysong Corp. v. APN , Inc. , 889 F.3d 267, 270-71 (6th Cir. 2018). If a statement is merely "misleading," then Louisiana-Pacific must prove that it deceived a "significant portion" of reasonable consumers. Id. at 271.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0514-01; Unicode character offsets [4125:4449] (end exclusive); SHA-256 581e8755e34bfb0778a01907d2df14e6053429105939aa3f3ee40fe1c1d76a68.Louisiana-Pacific applies a presumption for literal falsity but demands audience evidence for a misleading statement; dissemination or intent to persuade alone does not prove deception. Injunction versus damages posture affects proof of injury and relief.