“As seen on TV” can be false advertising if seller hasn’t been seen on TV

E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. v. Smart & Eazy Corp., 2018
WL 6528496, No. 18 Civ. 3217 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2018)
Plaintiff Emson sued defendants Masterpan and S&E for
false advertising.  The parties compete
to sell pots and pans.  Emson’s Gotham
Steel pots and pans are made of aluminum and have a copper-colored, non-stick
ceramic and titanium coating; it uses direct response TV commercials and as “As
Seen On TV” logo on its packages and other ads.
S&E and Masterpan sell “The Original Copper Pan” which
allegedly deceives the public by falsely and deceptively conveying to consumers
that its cookware is the first of its kind and that Emson’s (and other’s)
products are not the originals but are instead mere imitations. In addition,
defendants allegedly falsely advertised certain versions of the OCP as being
made of, and not merely coated with, copper. “Although each pan has a
copper-colored cooking surface, Emson alleges that it ran tests on samples of
the 12-inch OCP,” and found that “the cores of each of the tested Original
Copper Pans had undetectable levels of copper” and that the inner coating on
the samples also lacked the presence of copper. 
Finally, defendants allegedly “use an ‘As Seen On TV logo in their
advertising,” without having advertised on TV, or only minimally doing so.
The court found that false advertising was plausibly alleged
against Masterpan, in terms of copper construction, use of “original” to
suggest it was first of its kind, and use of “As Seen on TV.”  The court noted that the allegations on the
last one were tenuous, and that discovery might deterimine whether there was
literal truth/any TV advertising. 
Masterpan tried to distance itself from statements on the main website
and on Groupon, but while it was conceivable that Masterpan had no control over
or awareness of those statements, the court wouldn’t assume so on a motion to
dismiss. It was plausible that Masterpan “controls or is party to the marketing
statements regarding its products that appear on both websites.” The OCP
website “bears the name of the product that Masterpan manufactures and sells,”
and even if it wasn’t registered to Masterpan, it was plausible that “Masterpan
has had a say in the words used to market its products as sold through that website.”
Masterpan’s control over Groupon advertising was even more plausible, since the
OCP Groupon page “explicitly states that the product is ‘[s]old by Master[p]an’
and that ‘the merchant is solely responsible to purchasers for the fulfillment,
delivery, care, quality, and pricing information of the advertised goods and
Defendant S&E, however, fared better. Emson alleged
sufficient facts to plausibly conclude that Masterpan markets and sells the OCP,
as noted above and by providing documentary evidence that Masterpan shares
directors with Dreambiz, Ltd., which owns the trademark “The Original Copper
Pan.” But there was nothing so specific as to S&E, only allegations that it
shared an address with Masterpan.

from Blogger https://ift.tt/2PHNLGb

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s