“first urgent care” practice claim isn’t material or literally false

American Family Care, Inc. v. Medhelp, P.C., 2021 WL 4149782,
No. 2:19-CV-01325-LSC (N.D. Ala. Sept. 13, 2021)

Not having a materiality or harm requirement really makes a
difference in trademark cases compared to false advertising cases—look at the
reasons this false advertising claim fails.

AFC sued MedHelp for Lanham Act false advertising. AFC supplies
urgent care, family/primary care, and occupational health services nationwide;
its first clinic opened in Hoover, Alabama (Birmingham’s largest suburb), in
1982; no other urgent care clinics were operating in Birmingham.  But, for several years, MedHelp advertised on
its website that “MedHelp was founded in 1982 as the first Urgent Care/Family
Practice in Birmingham.” (In the 1980s, “urgent care” wasn’t in use, and such
clinics were typically called “freestanding emergency rooms,” “minor emergency
rooms,” “immediate care clinics,” or “walk-in clinics.”)

First, the court found that “founded in 1982 as the first
Urgent Care/Family Practice in Birmingham” was ambiguous because there is no
consistent definition of the term “urgent care.” And it was also ambiguous
whether “Birmingham” meant with or without its suburbs. [Comment: There is a
missing step here not revealed in the court’s decision: is MedHelp’s claim
truthful under any plausible definition? Maybe, but the court should
have clarified; if there are multiple possible meanings but the defendant’s
claim isn’t truthful using any of them, then other courts have found literal
falsity, which makes sense given the justifications for the literal/implicit

Since the ad was “merely misleading,” AFC needed evidence of
consumer deception, which it did not have.

In addition, AFC failed to show materiality, despite its
argument that the claim conveys “broader qualities including, but not limited to,
‘experience,’ ‘trust,’ and ‘competence’ that are important in choosing a health
care provider.” AFC’s expert cited two studies: a conjoint analysis of patient
decisions in two German hospitals and research involving health-seeking
preferences of elderly Filipinos. But the expert failed to link German and
Filipino preferences to US urgent care preferences.

Finally, AFC also failed to show injury. Its expert relied
on evidence that first movers should have a 24-30% market share advantage, but
there wasn’t any evidence that AFC was the first mover in the US urgent care
market and indeed a witness testified that there were “less than a hundred”
urgent care clinics when AFC opened its clinic in Hoover. Nor did the expert
discuss other potential causes like customer service, negative publicity (AFC
was sued for insurance fraud), or technology. Further, there wasn’t evidence
that the misleading first-mover claim “caused AFC to lose any profits, goodwill,
or business opportunities”; there wasn’t even any evidence on how many people
saw the claim.

With all this, the TMA’s presumption of irreparable harm was
no help.

from Blogger https://ift.tt/3m55t8U

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