AND · 15usc1125:false-fact
The quoted Ninth Circuit test, reproduced in Genus, identifies deception, materiality, commerce and causal injury distinctly. Factual claims are assessed in context; nonverifiable puffery generally cannot be proven false.
Exact element source
any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of factSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title15.jsonl#title15_sec1125; Unicode character offsets [267:386] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0a5680239d11ae3247a99abab2344db45177346d2d2e3050e95c82fb39f3aca7.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _whole accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. — 539 U.S. 23 (2003) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/hypothetical · not counted |
| literal-falsity provisional; 2 observed cases | Whether the statement is literally false, either on its face or by necessary implication, as opposed to ambiguous. | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 2 | 1 | Genus Lifesciences Inc. v. Lannett Co. — 378 F. Supp. 3d 823 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted 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) · applied/procedural · not counted 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) · applied/procedural · not counted |
| maker-of-statement provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether the defendant made the challenged representation, as opposed to passing on a third party's. | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | Outlaw Lab., LP v. Shenoor Enter., Inc. — 371 F. Supp. 3d 355 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas · 2019 — not · pleaded (15usc1125: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
| misleading-description provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether a literally true or ambiguous description is nonetheless a misleading representation of fact. | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | Genus Lifesciences Inc. v. Lannett Co. — 378 F. Supp. 3d 823 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted |
| puffery provisional; 2 observed cases | Whether the statement is non-actionable opinion or exaggeration rather than a statement of fact. | 2 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 1; excluded context 1 | 1 | EP Henry Corp. v. Cambridge Pavers, Inc. — 383 F. Supp. 3d 343 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2019 — not · law (15usc1125: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted EP Henry Corp. v. Cambridge Pavers, Inc. — 383 F. Supp. 3d 343 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1125: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted 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) · applied/procedural · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outlaw Lab., LP v. Shenoor Enter., Inc. — 371 F. Supp. 3d 355 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas · 2019 — not · pleaded (15usc1125: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | False or misleading factual representation | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (a)(1)(B); party: Retail Defendants (convenience stores); count: false advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B); subject: party=Retail Defendants (convenience stores); count=false advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B) 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. | false "all natural" labels created by a non-party manufacturer; retailers alleged only to resell, knowledge pleaded conclusorily | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_371.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/371/0355-01; Unicode character offsets [3482:3645] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8cf1fef6b033291600c1d067449e69c3c6d5a70e507a5f513e4d3d48b8338015.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_371.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/371/0355-01; Unicode character offsets [15442:15652] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8cf1fef6b033291600c1d067449e69c3c6d5a70e507a5f513e4d3d48b8338015.What's more, the only false statements Plaintiff identifies are the labels on the Rhino Products.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_371.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/371/0355-01; Unicode character offsets [18727:18824] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8cf1fef6b033291600c1d067449e69c3c6d5a70e507a5f513e4d3d48b8338015.Further, here, Plaintiff has provided only conclusory allegations that each Defendant had knowledge of the falsity of the Rhino Products' labels.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_371.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/371/0355-01; Unicode character offsets [33060:33205] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8cf1fef6b033291600c1d067449e69c3c6d5a70e507a5f513e4d3d48b8338015.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_371.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/371/0355-01; Unicode character offsets [31582:31763] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8cf1fef6b033291600c1d067449e69c3c6d5a70e507a5f513e4d3d48b8338015.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_371.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/371/0355-01; Unicode character offsets [15814:15979] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8cf1fef6b033291600c1d067449e69c3c6d5a70e507a5f513e4d3d48b8338015. |
| Genus Lifesciences Inc. v. Lannett Co. — 378 F. Supp. 3d 823 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | False or misleading factual representation | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: Genus against Lannett; count: Website meta description; subject: party=Genus against Lannett; count=Website meta description Falsity/misleadingness is the challenged issue for this statement; survival is not used to deem every advertising element satisfied. | generic-search-summary | Genus points out that Lannett's meta description for its C-Topical webpage is misleading: it states, "Learn more about the facts and characteristics of the generic pharmaceutical C-Topical® Solution CII."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_378.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/378/0823-01; Unicode character offsets [6900:7104] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cecb4fb9356fb3ba0c59f5db0729643e572e7c328d93987db6eb8bd51b3f3a87.It is relevant that consumers would have to click on yet another link to be informed that C-Topical has not completed the ANDA approval process required for generic drugs.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_378.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/378/0823-01; Unicode character offsets [37472:37643] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cecb4fb9356fb3ba0c59f5db0729643e572e7c328d93987db6eb8bd51b3f3a87.Lannett's statement in its website's meta description states a claim for false advertising under the Lanham Act.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_378.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/378/0823-01; Unicode character offsets [37644:37756] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cecb4fb9356fb3ba0c59f5db0729643e572e7c328d93987db6eb8bd51b3f3a87. |
| Genus Lifesciences Inc. v. Lannett Co. — 378 F. Supp. 3d 823 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | False or misleading factual representation | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: Genus against Lannett; count: Route of administration; subject: party=Genus against Lannett; count=Route of administration A factual labeling comparison survives pleading review; no safety/effectiveness determination or independent enforcement of FDA approval requirements is recorded. | topical-route-label | Lannett's label states that C-Topical is "indicated for the introduction of local (topical) anesthesia of accessible mucous membranes of the oral, laryngeal and nasal cavities."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_378.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/378/0823-01; Unicode character offsets [31994:32171] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cecb4fb9356fb3ba0c59f5db0729643e572e7c328d93987db6eb8bd51b3f3a87.Taking Genus's allegations as true for the purposes of this motion, the inside of the nose, mouth, and larynx are not "particular spots on the outer surface of the body" and C-Topical's route of administration cannot accurately be described as "topical" under the FDA's definitions.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_378.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/378/0823-01; Unicode character offsets [32537:32819] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cecb4fb9356fb3ba0c59f5db0729643e572e7c328d93987db6eb8bd51b3f3a87.Genus has sufficiently alleged that C-Topical's label route of administration is false.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_378.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/378/0823-01; Unicode character offsets [33762:33849] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cecb4fb9356fb3ba0c59f5db0729643e572e7c328d93987db6eb8bd51b3f3a87. |
| EP Henry Corp. v. Cambridge Pavers, Inc. — 383 F. Supp. 3d 343 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2019 — not · law (15usc1125: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | False or misleading factual representation | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (a)(1)(B); party: EP Henry Corporation (counterclaim-defendant; the claimant is counterclaimant Cambridge Pavers); count: counterclaim: "beauty" and "best"/superiority statements; subject: party=EP Henry Corporation (counterclaim-defendant; the claimant is counterclaimant Cambridge Pavers); count=counterclaim: "beauty" and "best"/superiority statements 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. | paver maker's "unrivaled beauty", "the best", "a step above the rest" slogans | 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."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_383.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/383/0343-01; Unicode character offsets [13475:13700] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8041a5a9c6e6a7d71a3310b96633d761731324b039a0193fbde969d49deae609.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_383.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/383/0343-01; Unicode character offsets [14259:14487] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8041a5a9c6e6a7d71a3310b96633d761731324b039a0193fbde969d49deae609.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_383.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/383/0343-01; Unicode character offsets [14488:14692] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8041a5a9c6e6a7d71a3310b96633d761731324b039a0193fbde969d49deae609."Puffery is an exaggeration or overstatement expressed in broad, vague, and commendatory language."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_383.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/383/0343-01; Unicode character offsets [11196:11295] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8041a5a9c6e6a7d71a3310b96633d761731324b039a0193fbde969d49deae609.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_383.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/383/0343-01; Unicode character offsets [13275:13474] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8041a5a9c6e6a7d71a3310b96633d761731324b039a0193fbde969d49deae609.These statements of superiority are non-actionable under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_383.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/383/0343-01; Unicode character offsets [14693:14782] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8041a5a9c6e6a7d71a3310b96633d761731324b039a0193fbde969d49deae609. |
| EP Henry Corp. v. Cambridge Pavers, Inc. — 383 F. Supp. 3d 343 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1125: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | False or misleading factual representation | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; claim: (a)(1)(B); party: EP Henry Corporation (counterclaim-defendant; the claimant is counterclaimant Cambridge Pavers); count: counterclaim: remaining durability, performance and comparative statements; subject: party=EP Henry Corporation (counterclaim-defendant; the claimant is counterclaimant Cambridge Pavers); count=counterclaim: remaining durability, performance and comparative statements 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. | measurable attribute claims (slip/stain resistance, lifetime durability) and competitor comparisons tied to a proprietary process | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_383.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/383/0343-01; Unicode character offsets [19766:20100] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8041a5a9c6e6a7d71a3310b96633d761731324b039a0193fbde969d49deae609.Moreover, a number of EP Henry's allegedly-false claims are made in comparison to another competitor's technology, including Cambridge's "Armortec."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_383.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/383/0343-01; Unicode character offsets [20729:20877] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8041a5a9c6e6a7d71a3310b96633d761731324b039a0193fbde969d49deae609.Thus, EP Henry combines certain representations about its pavers with claims about its superior manufacturing process that "only EP Henry" can provide.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_383.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/383/0343-01; Unicode character offsets [16944:17095] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8041a5a9c6e6a7d71a3310b96633d761731324b039a0193fbde969d49deae609.The Court recognizes that any individual consumer might disregard EP Henry's statements as exaggerations or vague overstatements.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_383.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/383/0343-01; Unicode character offsets [22320:22449] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8041a5a9c6e6a7d71a3310b96633d761731324b039a0193fbde969d49deae609."[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.' "Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_383.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/383/0343-01; Unicode character offsets [11812:12012] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8041a5a9c6e6a7d71a3310b96633d761731324b039a0193fbde969d49deae609.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_383.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/383/0343-01; Unicode character offsets [19558:19765] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8041a5a9c6e6a7d71a3310b96633d761731324b039a0193fbde969d49deae609.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_383.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/383/0343-01; Unicode character offsets [21374:21586] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8041a5a9c6e6a7d71a3310b96633d761731324b039a0193fbde969d49deae609. |
| 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. |
| Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. — 539 U.S. 23 (2003) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 — not reached (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | False or misleading factual representation | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / hypothetical theory: Possible subsection (B) misrepresentation distinct from pleaded subsection (A) claim; subject: theory=Possible subsection (B) misrepresentation distinct from pleaded subsection (A) claim The Court identifies a different hypothetical advertising claim; it neither finds the relevant advertisement nor decides liability on that theory. | hypothetical-advertising/claimed-difference-from-copied-video | If, moreover, the producer of a video that substantially copied the Crusade series were, in advertising or promotion, to give purchasers the impression that the video was quite different from that series, then one or more of the respondents might have a cause of action — not for reverse passing off under the “confusion ... as to the origin” provision of § 43(a)(1)(A), but for misrepresentation under the “misrepresents the nature, characteristics [or] qualities” provision of § 43(a)(1)(B).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_539.jsonl#/us/539/0023-01; Unicode character offsets [22531:23024] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e8c626d208ead599409c58268cc104a002fcb2cf5fa4a70d95bd12040f9b1242. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
To state a false advertisement claim under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must allege: "(1) a false statement of fact by the defendant in a commercial advertisement about its own or another's product; (2) the statement actually deceived or has the tendency to deceive a substantial segment of its audience; (3) the deception is material, in that it is likely to influence the purchasing decision; (4) the defendant caused its false statement to enter interstate commerce; and (5) the plaintiff has been or is likely to be injured as a result of the false statement, either by direct diversion of sales from itself to defendant or by lessening of the goodwill associated with its products." Wells Fargo & Co. v. ABD Ins. & Fin. Servs., Inc. , 758 F.3d 1069, 1071-72 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co. , 108 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 1997) ).
Genus Lifesciences Inc. v. Lannett Co. — 378 F. Supp. 3d 823 (2019) · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · 2019 (15usc1125: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed)
To state a false advertisement claim under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must allege: "(1) a false statement of fact by the defendant in a commercial advertisement about its own or another's product; (2) the statement actually deceived or has the tendency to deceive a substantial segment of its audience; (3) the deception is material, in that it is likely to influence the purchasing decision; (4) the defendant caused its false statement to enter interstate commerce; and (5) the plaintiff has been or is likely to be injured as a result of the false statement, either by direct diversion of sales from itself to defendant or by lessening of the goodwill associated with its products." Wells Fargo & Co. v. ABD Ins. & Fin. Servs., Inc. , 758 F.3d 1069, 1071-72 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co. , 108 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 1997) ).Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_378.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/378/0823-01; Unicode character offsets [20323:21188] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cecb4fb9356fb3ba0c59f5db0729643e572e7c328d93987db6eb8bd51b3f3a87.The quoted Ninth Circuit test, reproduced in Genus, identifies deception, materiality, commerce and causal injury distinctly. Factual claims are assessed in context; nonverifiable puffery generally cannot be proven false.