Entitlement to disgorgement doesn’t create Lanham Act standing

Gravelle v. Kaba Ilco Corp., 2016 WL 2644890, NO. 5:13-CV-642
(E.D.N.C. May 9, 2016)

Simple, but worth having a cite: plaintiff claimed false
advertising based on allegedly false patent marking.  He couldn’t show that the falsity was
proximately connected to any harm to his sales, in part because there were
other obvious explanations for declining sales (the product was near the end of
its commercial life and he also put a next-generation product on the market,
cannibalizing his own sales).  He argued
that he had standing to bring his Lanham Act claim because, if he prevailed, he’d
be entitled to disgorgement of profits. 
But injury and damages are separate inquiries.  “Thus, the mere fact that the Lanham Act
establishes a mechanism by which plaintiff could recover damages, were he
successful, does not mean that plaintiff has suffered an injury proximately
caused by defendant’s conduct, sufficient to support a claim under the Act.”

from Blogger http://ift.tt/221gzu6

Advertisements
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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s