Epson America, Inc. v. Global Aiptek Inc., 2025 WL 4631973, No.
8:23-cv-00222-FWS-DFM (C.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2025)

Epson alleged that defendant GAI purposefully and
deceptively inflated the lumen and brand specifications of its projectors in
violation of the Lanham Act and California’s UCL. The court mostly granted Epson’s
motion for summary judgment.

As alleged: “Within a particular projector category, such as
portable consumer projectors, the quality and corresponding price of a specific
projector are largely determined by its resolution and light output.” Lumen rating
is a key product feature; more is more expensive and lumen ratings are
prominently advertised and displayed on packages. Online, sellers list a
projector’s lumen rating in the product description, title, and even in the
product name.

GAI purportedly entered into a trademark agreement with HP
in 2017 to “use, reproduce and display the HP Trademarks” on “the HP Branded
Products” including LED based projectors. It allegedly used the HP mark on
packaging and advertising, and on GAI’s employee business cards. “HP has not
manufactured projectors for sale under its own brand since at least 2011.” “GAI
desired to use the HP name because HP has a ‘huge global presence and track
record.’ ”

ISO sets the internationally recognized standard for
scientific measurement of white brightness in a laboratory setting.” GAI advertised
its projectors with various lumen values. For example, it advertised its HP
BP5000 model as having various light output specifications, including “6000
Laser Lms (2500 ANSI);” “4500-Lumen; “2000 ANSI Lm;” “2000-lumen;” and “200
ANSI Lumens; 6000 Laser Source lumens.”

However, “GAI does not conduct any testing to confirm the
brightness specifications of its projectors.” A principal “claims that he uses
his own ‘personal perception’ and ‘instinct’ to look at the projectors with the
naked eye and determine whether it is ‘fitting [his] expectation’ and ‘whether
this is a match to the data sheet or not.’ ” “GAI has no internal definition of
‘laser lumen’ and cannot distinguish it from a ‘lumen.’ ”

Epson had two false advertising claims: (1) GAI inflates the
lumen values of the projectors, and (2) GAI misrepresents who manufactures its
projectors, which I find a much more interesting argument!

Epson’s evidence demonstrates that the lumen claims were
literally false, based on its independent testing. Each of the models tested
produced results evidencing light output significantly below the brightness
values claimed by GAI, e.g., the HP BP5000 model produced “an average light
output of 1655 lumens, testing as low as 1598 lumens, and nothing above 1732
lumens.” “That each projector is advertised so far above its highest tested
output demonstrates literal falsity.”

Although GAI relied on test reports commissioned from
Shenzen Circle Testing Certification Co., it did not produce an expert witness
to opine on the veracity of these test reports. “Without expert corroboration,
the test reports do not create a battle of the experts on the truth of GAI’s
advertisements.”

GAI also argued that ISO standards “account for normal
manufacturing variances” and that projectors can comply with that standard “as
long as its measured light output at the time of shipment is no less than 80%
of the value stated on its specification sheet.” But Epson’s unrebutted testing
shows that GAI’s projectors produce lumen values at well below 80% of their
advertised values. Independently, GAI didn’t show why compliance with ISO
standards “would somehow allow an entity to avoid liability under the Lanham
Act.”

GAI then argued that it uses the term “ANSI lumens” or “LED
lumens” to notify consumers that GAI is describing the internal brightness of
the projector rather than the light that exits the projector. “GAI’s
explanation, when viewed in context, does not make sense,” given that “GAI has
no internal definition of ‘laser lumen’ and cannot distinguish it from a
‘lumen.’ ” “Moreover, there is no reason to believe a consumer would understand
GAI’s advertisements to be referring to the internal brightness of a projector.”

HP manufacture: Epson argued that a “trademark license does
not permit a licensee to represent itself as the brand owner or to trade on the
licensor’s goodwill as if the products originated from that licensor.” It cited
mainly naked licensing cases like Barcamerica Int’l USA Tr. v. Tyfield
Importers, Inc., which said that it was “inherently deceptive” for a licensor
to fail “to exercise adequate quality control over the licensee.”

The court decided that this question was for the jury. A
naked license might not show literal falsity, and, given the Ninth Circuit’s
caution that it is “difficult, if not impossible” to define “how much control
and inspection” the licensor need exercise, whether there was a naked license
was ill-suited to summary judgment. “That is especially true here where GAI
provides at least some evidence that HP has not completely abdicated oversight
of manufacturing and quality control.”

But GAI didn’t contest the materiality of lumens or direct
competition between the parties. Online “retailers often create their own
comparison of the specifications of the specifications of competing brands’
models, with the lumen rating at or near the top of the list.” GAI argued that there
was no injury because GAI’s most popular projector retails for $150 while
Epson’s cheapest model starts at $300. That didn’t let GAI createa triable
issue as to injury. “That one projector might differ from another in price to
some degree does not mean that those projectors do not compete at all because
consumers evaluate other factors such as performance and brand when purchasing
projectors. GAI’s argument is better suited for the damages phase, where a
difference in price could demonstrate the degree to which sales were diverted
from Epson to GAI.” Epson was still entitled to summary judgment on liability.

from Blogger https://tushnet.blogspot.com/2026/04/naked-licensing-could-constitute-false.html