No Lanham Act liability for failure to correct another’s misstatement

GeoMetWatch Corp. v. Hall, No. 1:14-cv-60, 2019 WL 578917
(D. Utah Feb. 12, 2019)
Business dispute; of interest here, GeoMet asserted false
advertising against defendant AWSF because of two statements about Tempus, with
which it was working.  However, both
statements about Tempus were made by Tempus, and thus couldn’t be the basis of
Lanham Act liability for AWSF.  GeoMet
argued that “AWSF assisted Hall in making misleading statements about
Tempus[,]” and that “AWSF did not correct, and continued to promote, the Hall
Defendants’ misleading representations that they were replacing GeoMetWatch.” The
statements were made in emails sent by Tempus employees that AWSF
representatives received (and thus knew of). 
The court stated that it had seen “no authority for the novel
proposition that the Lanham Act imposes liability on an entity that has in some
way assisted another in making false or misleading statements of fact.”  Stated this way, it’s too broad: secondary
liability is definitely a thing in Lanham Act false advertising cases.  But it seems reasonable to doubt the idea
that the Lanham Act “imposes a duty on third parties to correct another’s false
or misleading representation of fact,” at least outside of cases in which the
third party itself makes some contribution to the misleadingness.  So, merely receiving the emails couldn’t
trigger Lanham Act liability.

from Blogger

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: Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s