Purple haze: court declines to recognize contributory false advertising claim

Purple Innovations, LLC v. Honest Reviews, LLC, No.
2:17-cv-138, 2017 WL 3172810 (D. Utah Jul. 25, 2017)

Mostly a jurisdiction case, but defendant GhostBed also
successfully moved to dismiss Purple Innovations’ claim for contributory false
association and false advertising. 
Although the court acknowledged that (1) other circuits have recognized
contributory liability under §43(a)(1)(B) and that (2) courts in Utah have
recognized contributory infringement liability, it nonetheless declined “to
extend” the Lanham Act to allow such an action, with no further analysis.  Look, someone’s got to be the first—or at
least should make an argument about why there shouldn’t be contributory
liability for false advertising when the rest of the surrounding apparatus is the
same as for infringement.

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

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