plaintiff suing for noncomparative false advertising fails to establish irreparable harm

True Organic Products, Inc. v. California Organic
Fertilizers, Inc., 2019 WL 1023888, No. 18-CV-1278 AWI EG (E.D. Cal. Mar. 4,
2019)
If trademark owners have cause to bemoan eBay’s application to Lanham Act claims,
false advertising plaintiffs have even more, as this case demonstrates.
Plaintiff True sells organic fertilizers, and is one of the largest and most
sought-after manufacturers of organic fertilizers on the West Coast. Defendant
COFI directly competes with True for sales of organic liquid fertilizer
containing at least 4% nitrogen.
COFI sells Phytamin Clear, whose label states that it
contains 4% nitrogen, which is composed of 3% nitrate nitrogen and 1%
ammoniacal nitrogen. Phytamin Clear’s label also reads: “Derived from mined
seabird guano.” The Material Safety Data Sheet repeats the guano claim. “Phytamin
Clear is appealing to growers because of its high nitrate nitrogen levels and
because the clear liquid can be easily applied through irrigation systems.”
True’s most directly competing products don’t have nitrate nitrogen,
to which plants more quickly than they do to the organic nitrogen in most
organic fertilizers. True “controls over 50% of the market” for organic liquid
fertilizers containing at least 4% nitrogen and there are only four other
companies competing with it.
Based on True’s experience with seabird guano products, it
thought the nitrate nitrogen content of Phytamin Clear wasn’t consistent with
seabird guano. It raised concerns with the California Department of Food and
Agriculture, but nothing happened.  True
thinks COFI’s source uses sodium nitrate to nitrogenate the guano; sodium
nitrate is approved for use in organic farming in the United States, but not in
Canada.  Many organic users in the U.S.
allegedly export to Canada and thus must comply with Canadian rules. True
allegedly obtained five samples of what it alleged was Phytamin Clear that came
from at least four different batches and compared them to other products and
materials, including the accepted reference sample for Chilean sodium nitrate
and fossilized seabird guano.  (COFI
argued that there were substantial questions about the authenticity and/or purity
about the samples because of chain of custody issues—for example, the lot
numbers on the containers allegedly didn’t indicate a direct sale to the farms
from which the samples were obtained and the containers weren’t labeled the way
COFI labels its containers.) The test results were reviewed by a professor of soil
biogeochemistry, who concluded that Phytamin Clear is not solely derived from
mined seabird guano or a fossilized seabird guano extract, but the ingredients
were consistent with a product made from Chilean sodium nitrate.
True alleged literal falsity.  The only issue the court resolved was irreparable
harm. True argued (1) sales diversion and (2) lessened goodwill for True
through the implication that the nutrient content of Phytamin Clear can be
achieved through the use of seabird guano, when True can’t offer similar
products because it’s impossible. “Further, the general goodwill associated
with organic fertilizer products is lessened by misleading advertising that
cause farmers to distrust organic fertilizers.”
“[B]ecause of the difficulty of valuing goodwill, a loss of
or damage to goodwill can constitute an irreparable harm for purposes of a
preliminary injunction.” Nonetheless, “concrete evidence” of harm to goodwill is
still required, and it wasn’t present here. There was no likely confusion
between the companies and no comparative references on COFI’s label.  The idea that COFI could damage True’s
goodwill, or the credibility of organic fertilizers generally, was “counterintuitive
and contrary to the concept of ‘goodwill,’” which refers to the reputation of
an individual business entity. “[A]ny negative ramifications to goodwill due to
a false label would fall on COFI alone.” [I’m not sure about this—although it
might not happen here, the idea that a bad actor can taint the reputation of an
entire industry is not ridiculous; that’s part of what gets us the famous
market for lemons.]  There was no
evidence of damage to True’s goodwill, and its market share suggested to the
contrary even though Phytamin Clear has been on the market since 2010.
As for threatened lost sales/prospective customers, they
could also support finding irreparable harm. But there wasn’t evidence that
this had actually happened.  The fact that
the parties competed directly was insufficient with four other companies on the
market. Anyway, “lost profits due to lost sales generally constitutes the type
of harm that is fully compensable through money damages and therefore does not
support injunctive relief.” Trademark cases were of no assistance to the claim
here.

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

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s