Allegedly false statements on package/instructions didn't plausibly harm competitors, court rules

Telebrands Corp. v. Everstar Merchandise Co., No. 17-2878, 2018 WL 585765 (D.N.J. Jan. 29, 2018) (magistrate judge)Telebrands sells novelty stuff; Everstar, a competitor, allegedly copied its stuff in unlawful ways.  Relevant to this blog, Telebrands alleged that Everstar engaged in false advertising under §43(a) by printing false information on the packaging of its GALAXY LASER and NORTHERN LIGHTS LASER products, as well as within the operating instructions for those products.  The statements allegedly understated the maximum power output of the lasers (whose output was actually in excess of that allowed by the FDA), misleading consumers into thinking the lasers would be safe to use.  Rather than dealing with this as a matter of “commercial advertising or promotion,” as I would have guessed, the court used Lexmark and proximate cause.First, the court reasoned, Telebrands didn’t allege that Everstar characterized the statements on the…

Read more detail on Recent Advertising Law posts –

This entry was posted in Advertising Law and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply