burger case involves unclean hands (ew) and literal falsity about beef amounts

In-N-Out Burgers v. Smashburger IP Holder LLC, 2018 WL 7891028, No. SACV 17-1474 JVS(DFMx) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018)As relevant here, In-N-Out alleged that Smashburger falsely advertised its Triple Double hamburger as containing “Double the Beef” because the burger’s two patties together contain the same amount of beef as the single patty in Smashburger’s regular burgers. The court here addressed Smashburger’s unclean hands defense based on INO’s claims that its meat has “No Additives, Fillers or Preservatives,” even though its meat contains antibiotics. INO’s claims regarding its meat, as well as its claims regarding “freshness,” also allegedly falsely suggested to prospective customers that its food was healthy, or at least a healthier alternative to other fast food restaurants. Does Twiqbal apply to affirmative defenses? The court here thought no: under Rule 8(a), factual plausibility is necessary to…

Read more detail on Recent Advertising Law posts –

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

Leave a Reply