False Advertising & Lanham Act

Representative Transactions

  • Reckitt Benckiser, Inc. v. Motomco Ltd., Case No. 10-CV-6228 (Southern District of New York). Quarles & Brady defended Motomco Ltd., maker of Tomcat® rodenticides, in a Lanham Act and state-law unfair competition lawsuit. We filed counterclaims for false advertising that resulted in the court's enjoining the plaintiff, maker of dCON®, from making certain false statements to retail buyers.
  • Seirus Innovative Accessories v. Cabela’s, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:2009cv00102 (Southern District of California). One of our attorneys helped to successfully defend Cabela’s in this case against Lanham Act claims of trade dress infringement and unfair competition. Our attorney obtained summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim that Cabela’s infringed its trade dress and was thus engaging in unfair competition. The court ruled that Seirus’s trade dress was functional, not protected by trade dress, and that Cabela’s had not engaged in unfair competition.
  • Montana Camo, Inc. v. Cabela’s, Inc., Case No. CV-08-71 (District of Montana). One of our attorneys helped to successfully defend Cabela’s in this case against claims of trademark infringement, false advertising, copyright infringement, and unfair competition. Our attorney obtained summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim that a sponsored link constituted false advertising, with the court ruling, among other things, that the client’s purchase of this sponsored link was not a statement of fact, and thus, that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The non-advertising claims in the case were also resolved on summary judgment.
  • Standard Process, Inc. v. Total Health Discount, Inc., and Total Health Network Corp., Case No. 06-CV-803 (Eastern District of Wisconsin). We represented an internet retailer in this case, defending against claims of trademark infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition based on its use of trademarked terms on its website. Following a trial, the court held that there was no infringement, nor was it false advertising, where the defendant used the trademarked terms on its website, in metatags, and as a keyword to generate advertising. This was an issue of first impression in this jurisdiction.
  • AVID Identification Systems, Inc. v. Allflex USA, Inc. and Pethealth Services (USA), Inc., Case No. 04-C-0067 (Western District of Wisconsin). We represented Pethealth in defending against Lanham Act false advertising and unfair competition claims brought by AVID. The dispute involved microchips, the ISO standard for pet microchipping, and the sale of pet insurance. We brought counterclaims against AVID on Pethealth’s behalf. The court granted summary judgment in Pethealth’s favor on several of these false advertising claims. AVID dismissed its case against Pethealth prior to trial.
  • Miller Brewing Company v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., Case No. 04-C-507 (Eastern District of Wisconsin). Quarles & Brady represented Miller Brewing Company as the plaintiff in a false advertising lawsuit under the Lanham Act, challenging advertisements by competitor Anheuser-Busch that included false statements about Miller’s corporate ownership. We won a preliminary injunction from the court, prohibiting this false advertising.
  • Leo Gallagher a/k/a “Gallagher” et al. v. Ron Gallagher, Classic Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 99-75657 (Eastern District of Michigan). We were counsel for Gallagher, a nationally known comedian, in a suit involving claims of trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, and right of publicity. We obtained preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on Gallagher’s behalf, barring the defendants’ false advertising and protecting Gallagher’s “Sledge-O-Matic” routine and innovative comedy act.
  • Investigations by the Federal Trade Commission and by state attorneys general and consumer protection agencies. Every contact from a government agency demands a thorough and careful response. We have helped numerous clients respond to the FTC and state consumer protection officials in investigations for false advertising, failure to substantiate claims made, deceptive trade practices, and other matters.