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.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| hypothetical-advertising/claimed-difference-from-copied-video | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/539/0023-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 — rule-announced/hypothetical | |
| literal-falsity | Objectively false factual statement, including unambiguous necessary implication where recognized. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| literal-falsity/ambiguous-termite-damage | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/928/0514-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — applied/procedural | |
| literal-falsity/retouched-woodpecker-image | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/928/0514-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — applied/procedural | |
| literal-falsity/topical-route-label | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp-3d/378/0823-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of California · 2019 — satisfied | |
| misleading-description/generic-search-summary | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp-3d/378/0823-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of California · 2019 — satisfied | |
| misleading-truth | Facially true but misleading representation, normally requiring evidence of audience takeaway. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| puffery/pests-love-it | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/928/0514-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — applied/procedural |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp-3d/378/0823-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of California · 2019 | 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. | literal-falsity/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. |
| /f-supp-3d/378/0823-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of California · 2019 | 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. | misleading-description/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. |
| /f3d/928/0514-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 | 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. | literal-falsity/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. |
| /f3d/928/0514-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 | 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. | puffery/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. |
| /f3d/928/0514-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 | 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. | literal-falsity/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. |
| /us/539/0023-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 | 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) ).
/f-supp-3d/378/0823-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of California · 2019
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.