Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01056/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01056-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 450
Nature of Suit: Interstate Commerce
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

ThermoLife International, LLC,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Gaspari Nutrition, Inc., 

Defendant.

No. CV 11-01056-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court is Plaintiff/Counterdefendant ThermoLife’s Motion to Dismiss 

Counterclaims (Doc. 52). This matter arises from allegations of false advertising and 

unfair competition between two suppliers of dietary supplements. Gaspari claims that 

ThermoLife has made various false and disparaging statements about its products, such 

as that the products are mislabeled, underdosed, spiked, poorly formulated, and 

pixidusted, and about Rich Gaspari, Gaspari’s president. After review of the briefing on 

ThermoLife’s Motion to Dismiss, the Court gave Gaspari leave to file an amended 

counterclaim (Doc. 59). In its amended counterclaim, Gaspari asserts three 

counterclaims against ThermoLife: (1) False Designations of Origin, False Descriptions, 

False Advertising, and Unfair Competition – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (2) Unfair Competition 

Under Arizona Common Law; and (3) Trade Disparagement (Doc. 61). 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

 On a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), all allegations of material 

fact are assumed to be true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving 

party. Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009). To avoid dismissal, a 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 62 Filed 08/28/12 Page 1 of 5
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

complaint must contain “only enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on 

its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial 

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). However, the principle that a court accepts as true all of 

the allegations in a complaint does not apply to legal conclusions or conclusory factual 

allegations. Id. at 678-79. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. at 678. “A plaintiff’s 

obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and 

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 

II. ANALYSIS 

ThermoLife moves to dismiss Gaspari’s counterclaims for failure to state a claim 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and for failure to plead the claims with sufficient 

particularity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). 

Gaspari asserts its claims based on statements ThermoLife made on both its own 

website and third-parties’ websites. With respect to the statements ThermoLife made on 

its own website, ThermoLife asserts that Gaspari has failed to state a claim because it has 

failed to sufficiently allege or provide any factual support for its allegation that 

ThermoLife’s statements are false. However, Gaspari alleges falsity throughout its 

counterclaim pleading. (See, e.g., Doc. 61 at 37 “ThermoLife’s postings are false because 

[Gaspari] supplements contain 95% 3,4-divanillytetrahydrofuran”; ) Gaspari has alleged 

that ThermoLife’s purportedly actionable statements are false, and in its amended 

counterclaim also affirmatively alleges that its products contain effective doses and 

otherwise rebuts the allegedly false statements made by ThermoLife. Gaspari has 

alleged, for example, both that ThermoLife made a false statement that Gaspari’s 

products are underdose and that Gaspari’s products are not underdosed. Dismissal on the 

basis of failure to sufficiently allege falsity is not warranted. 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 62 Filed 08/28/12 Page 2 of 5
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

ThermoLife also asserts that Gaspari’s counterclaims related to postings made on 

its own website are not pled with particularity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). The Court 

concluded in ruling on Gaspari’s motion to dismiss ThermoLife’s claims that Rule 9(b) 

applied because ThermoLife was alleging that Gaspari was committing fraud by 

intentionally falsely marketing its products in order to deceive customers and succeed in 

the market (Doc. 34). However, Gaspari’s counterclaims sound more in harassment than 

fraud. In any event, Gaspari has identified with particularity at least one specific post 

from April 6, 2012, by Mr. Kramer, ThermoLife’s president, wherein Mr. Kramer asserts 

that Gaspari’s Vasotropin products are underdosed, in its original counterclaim (Doc. 47-

1). In its amended counterclaim, Gaspari has identified several more specific postings 

(See, e.g., Doc. 61 at 37 (referencing message board post from January 27, 2010), 38 

(September 3, 2008 post), 39 (September 23, 2008 post), 40 (January 27, 2010 and April 

6, 2012 posts)). Gaspari’s counterclaims are pled with sufficient particularity. 

The majority of ThermoLife’s arguments in favor of dismissal of Gaspari’s 

counterclaims is spent arguing that the May 25, 2012 blog post on a third-party’s website 

is not actionable because it does not fall within the scope of Section 43(a) of the Lanham 

Act, constitutes mere puffery, and does not include false assertions of objective fact. 

These arguments are misplaced. As ThermoLife acknowledges (Doc. 52 at 9), the 

statement in the blog post that Gaspari’s products are “poorly formulated and pixidusted” 

does in fact go to the nature, characteristics, and qualities of Gaspari’s goods and would 

accordingly fall within the scope of the Lanham Act. Further, the statements on the 

website are not mere puffery; the statements reflect a relatively straightforward, if 

subjective, report of the Court’s order related on a previous motion to dismiss. While the 

picture under the headline of the blog post and the headline itself could possibly be 

considered satire, the article itself cannot be so construed. ThermoLife’s First 

Amendment analysis of whether any of the statements in the blog post could be construed 

as false statements of objective fact is inapposite to the claims raised here. In any event, 

even if the Court were to exclude the statements from the blog post, Gaspari’s claims can 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 62 Filed 08/28/12 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

be supported relying on the statements posted on ThermoLife’s website disparaging 

Gaspari’s products and Rich Gaspari. 

As to the remaining counterclaims, ThermoLife asserts that Gaspari’s common 

law unfair competition claim “fails to identify any actionable conduct that occurred or 

which caused [Gaspari] harm” (Doc. 52 at 5) and that the counterclaims are barred by the 

statute of limitations because the actionable statements on ThermoLife’s website were 

made before 2009. However, Gaspari has sufficiently alleged its false advertising claims, 

and ThermoLife does not challenge that the false advertising claim is actionable as unfair 

competition under Arizona law. Gaspari has sufficiently alleged falsity of ThermoLife’s 

statements, explained how these statements have damaged Gaspari’s reputation and 

goodwill in the dietary supplement industry, and asserted that these statements have been 

detrimental to Gaspari’s sales and diverted Gaspari customers to ThermoLife and other 

supplement providers. Further, ThermoLife’s argument that the unfair competition claim 

is barred by the three-year statute of limitations, see Ranch Realty, Inc. v. DC Ranch 

Realty, LLC, 614 F. Supp. 2d 983, 990 (D. Ariz. 2007) fails. Gaspari relies on a post 

from April 6, 2012 to support its counterclaims, well within the limitations period. 

However, to the extent the unfair competition claim is premised on ThermoLife’s alleged 

“use of illegal means” (Doc. 61 at 49), Gaspari has failed to sufficiently allege how this 

conduct constitutes unfair competition or that any conduct within the limitations period is 

distinct from the allegations underlying the false advertising claims. Therefore, 

ThermoLife’s motion will be granted to the extent that the Court will dismiss Gaspari’s 

allegations of “use of illegal means” to support its unfair competition claim. 

ThermoLife challenges Gaspari’s trade disparagement claim on the basis that 

Arizona does not recognize trade disparagement as a cause of action. However, 

ThermoLife recognizes that the claim is effectively one for trade libel, defined as the 

“intentional publication of an injurious falsehood disparaging the quality of another's 

property with resulting pecuniary loss.” Gee v. Pima Cnty., 126 Ariz. 116, 116, 612 P.2d 

1079, 179 (1980). ThermoLife states this claim should fail because Gaspari “has put 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 62 Filed 08/28/12 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

forth no facts to demonstrate that the statements contained in the Blog Post are false.” 

(Doc. 52 at 15.) However, this assertion overlooks both that (1) Gaspari has asserted that 

the statements are false and (2) Gaspari relies on both the postings on ThermoLife’s own 

website and the blog post to support its claims. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff/Counterdefendant ThermoLife’s 

Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims (Doc. 52) is granted as to the claim for “use of illegal 

means” to constitute Gaspari’s unfair competition claim, and otherwise denied. 

Dated this 28th day of August, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-01056-NVW Document 62 Filed 08/28/12 Page 5 of 5