Kalmbach Feeds, Inc. v. Purina Animal Nutrition, LLC, 2026
WL 598608, No. 2:25-cv-00617 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 4, 2026)

Previously.
Kalmbach sued Defendant Purina for false advertising under state and federal
law in connection with its Farm to Flock chicken feed, which Purina represented
as helping to defend against viruses such as avian influenza.

Although Kalmbach received a preliminary injunction because
of the misleadingness of Purina’s claims, it didn’t sufficiently allege injury,
so the court granted Purina’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend.  

Kalmbach alleged that deceived consumers asked why Kalmbach
has not also produced a feed that defends against avian influenza. And it
argued that direct competition plus customer inquiries satisfied the zone of
interest test. The court disagreed. There was no allegation of reputational
harm in the operative complaint, so Kalmbach had to allege injury to its sales.
Allegations that “[c]ustomers have…been misled by Purina’s false claims – to
Kalmbach’s direct detriment” were conclusory. “Put differently, Kalmbach must
plead that Purina’s false claims actually hurt it, rather than simply confused
customers. Kalmbach does not allege that these confused customers would
otherwise have purchased Kalmbach’s feed—Kalmbach just presumes injury.”

Now do trademark infringement!

from Blogger https://tushnet.blogspot.com/2026/04/lack-of-harm-allegations-beyond-direct.html