Lost sales as irreparable harm

Epson America, Inc. v. USA111, Inc., No. 17-cv-00129, 2017
WL 1484400 (D.S.C. Apr. 26, 2017)
Let’s admit it: the case law is a mess on this.  Epson sued its competitor, d/b/a iRULU, for falsely advertising
its portable consumer projectors, specifically its BL20 model. The court
granted a preliminary injunction.  Quality and price for these projectors are “largely
determined based on the resolution and brightness of the projector,” the latter
of which is measured in lumens and which is important to consumers. iRULU sells
about 30 different models, with advertised lumen ratings between 800 to 2800
lumens.  The BL20 was advertised on
Amazon and other online retailers as having 2600 lumens and was designated as
an Amazon “Best Seller” in the Fall of 2016.
Epson commissioned an independent technology consulting
company to test the BL20 projector, and the results showed lumen output of
approximately 80 lumens instead of the 2600 advertised.  iRULU argued that it reasonably relied on test
reports from Chinese labs showing a “luminous flux” of “3714.568 lm” on one
test and “3869.0 lm” on the other, but it didn’t provide other evidence or show
that those tests were accurate.  It
ceased advertising its BL20 projector as having 2600 lumens, at least on some
websites, but didn’t  provide a lumen
rating.  The court found that Epson
showed falsity.
Epson also showed injury due to loss of sales and market
share: iRULU’s market share was 24% since it entered the market, and Epson’s
loss in sales was estimated at approximately $16 million.  iRULU argued that no injunction was necessary
because it removed the offending ads, but Epson still showed irreparable harm. iRULU’s
claims of 2600 lumens were still present on some websites, including iRULU’s
own website, even after iRULU represented to the court that the claims had been
removed. Also, the BL20 still comes up when searching for “2600 lumen
projector,” “apparently as a result of prior advertisements or customer
comments.” Thus, cessation of the challenged conduct didn’t stop irreparable
injury.
iRULU also argued that Epson’s loss of projector sales could
be compensated by money damages if proven at trial, and therefore an injunction
is not appropriate. But injunctive relief is allowed even if money damages are
available, if a remedy at law is inadequate. Epson showed a decline in sales;
the court was not persuaded that iRULU wasn’t responsible for at least part of
that decline.  Also, money damages would
not prevent iRULU from “infecting the marketplace with the same or similar
claims in different advertisements in the future,” so there was irreparable
harm.


The court granted a preliminary injunction requiring iRULU to cease false
advertisements of inflated lumen ratings, and ordering it to provide a lumen
rating of either “undetermined” or Epson’s independent test result of 80 lumens
on all advertising. However, the court didn’t require corrective notices to be
sent to consumers at this point in the case. 
iRULU could also arrange for court-approved testing, whose results could
be used in ads once a validated lumen rating was produced.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/2qpAoPI

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