Apples-to-oranges comparison is literally false, justifies finding of irreparable harm

Market Track, LLC v. Efficient Collaborative Retail
Marketing, LLC, 2015 WL 3637740, No. 14 C 4957 (N.D. Ill. June 11, 2015)
 
Market Track provides business intelligence services,
principally tracking and analyzing information relating to consumer
advertising. ECRM is Market Track’s principal competitor in the ad tracking
business. After ECRM began competing directly with Market Track, some of Market
Track’s customers switched to ECRM’s ad tracking product, while others were
able to negotiate lower prices from Market Track’s products and services.
 
Market Track sued for patent infringement, tortious
interference, and false advertising.  The
court invalidated the patent, titled “Automatic Creation of Output Files from
Images in Database,” as too abstract under Alice/Mayo. 
The tortious interference with contract claims were preempted by the
Illinois Trade Secret Act, because they depended on allegations of
misappropriation, defined to include “breach or inducement of a breach of a
confidential relationship or other duty to maintain secrecy or limit use.”  Moreover, Market Track failed to show harm
from any breach. Its claimed loss of market share, price erosion, and loss of
customer goodwill couldn’t be causally linked to any contractual interference,
as opposed to alleged patent infringement or other factors.  For example, a 2014 Market Track study found
that, despite the fact that ECRM’s data was inferior to Market Track’s in terms
of coverage, granularity, and completeness, ECRM’s user interface was more appealing,
ECRM’s customer service satisfaction was higher, ECRM had a reputation of being
more innovative, and ECRM’s pricing was lower than Market Track’s.
 
Market Track also couldn’t get a preliminary injunction on
most of its Lanham Act/state law deceptive trade practices claims, but did win
on one.  Market Track challenged seven
ECRM statements, particularly a slide featuring a side-by-side juxtaposition of
“Leading Competitor Coverage” of “Top 50 Advertising DMA’s” next to “ECRM Data
Coverage” of “Over 65,000 Stores” and “100% Census Coverage”:
 

ECRM didn’t dispute that this slide qualified as
advertising, but the other challenged statements were in emails to potential
customers: ECRM represented that Market Track double-counts ads in its own
data, and that ECRM has converted a high number of Market Track’s existing
customers to the ECRM service. Market Track said that these statements are
false, because it employs sophisticated techniques to avoid double counting ads
in its data, and because its own records show that fewer than 80 clients have
switched from Market Track to ECRM. However, the emails weren’t pervasive
enough to count as “commercial advertising or promotion” under the Lanham Act,
and the parties agreed that the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act used the
same standards (though I would say that “commercial advertising or promotion”
is usually a point of departure for state statutes, which after all are usually
configured to allow individual consumers to sue for misrepresentations made to
them).  Under the Lanham Act, “private
one-to-one communications do not constitute ‘commercial advertising or promotion’
unless systematically communicated to a substantial portion of the relevant
market for a product, and Market Track’s 850 customers meant that two emails
that accuse Market Track of “double counting” and four emails that overstated
the number of clients who switched were more like isolated one-to-one
communications.
 
The slide remained. 
Market Track argued literal falsity, because its coverage area was
substantially larger than the graphic depicted. 
ECRM responded that the slide didn’t literally identify Market Track as
the “leading competitor” or literally say that Market Track only tracked 50
designated market areas (DMAs).  But the
other slides in the presentation did identify Market Track as the leading competitor,
and arguably the sole competitor.  Any
viewer would understand the reference to Market Track.  Moreover, the slide was literally false: the
standard is not a full statement of an untruth in words, but “a showing that
the challenged statement is unambiguous and could not reasonably be understood
to mean anything different.”  The graphic
offered a misleading juxtaposition, like other misleading comparisons found to
be literally false.  The side-by-side
maps “unambiguously communicate that the two maps are intended to be an
apples-to-apples comparison of objective fact.” 
The unavoidable conclusion was that ECRM’s coverage was complete, down
to individual stores, while Market Track’s coverage was far less complete. 
 
ECRM argued that it was just stating “that competitor
products generally collect only one sample retailer ad per DMA rather than many
ads from all stores over the entire area of a DMA.”  But that didn’t make sense. First, Market
Track’s map was arbitrarily capped at the “Top 50” DMAs, rather than the “more
than 200” DMAs tracked by Market Track.  Second, the Market Track data “inexplicably
consolidates all retailers (up to 1500) of any given DMA into a single dot on
the ‘competitor’ side but not the ECRM side.” 
Third, each “sample retailer ad” was represented by an identically sized
dot on the maps, “inviting the conclusion that the each dot represents an identical
geographical footprint.” As a result, rather than conveying a message of more
granular coverage, the slide misrepresented that ECRM’s data covered 1300 times
the geographic area as Market Track, and that Market Track didn’t offer
granularity at the retailer level.
 
Literal falsity allows deception to be presumed, and this
claim is obviously material.  Moreover, “disparaging
false statements about a competitor’s product, especially when the relevant
market is nearly entirely occupied by two competitors, harms the competitor’s
goodwill and competitive position.”  These are cognizable injuries under the Lanham
Act, “even absent a showing of business loss,” because “it is virtually
impossible to ascertain the precise economic consequences” of such harms.  Because plaintiffs need not show business
loss, the causation problems afflicting the tortious interference claim didn’t
apply here. “Market Track would be hard pressed to identify lost customers or
price erosion specifically attributable to false advertising, either, but
Market Track has identified separate injuries–to reputation and goodwill–which
naturally flow from false advertising and support the Lanham Act claim.”
 
Does eBay allow a
resulting presumption of irreparable harm? Cases in the Northern District of
Illinois continued to apply that presumption, but only one of them even cited eBay, without discussing its
implications for Lanham Act cases. Out of an abundance of caution, the court
didn’t apply a blanket presumption. 
Because the challenged conduct was “a literally false statement
disparaging the leading competitor in a market primarily shared by two
competitors,” about a material fact (coverage) which was precisely where Market
Track claimed a competitive advantage over ECRM, the court found irreparable
injury likely.
 
With that out of the way, the balance of hardships and the
public interest also weighed in favor of issuing an injunction against using
the slide or substantially similar graphics. ECRM’s voluntary cessation meant
an injunction wouldn’t burden it but didn’t moot the case.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/1CbhB97

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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s