N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C ALTEX PLASTIC S, INC .,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. ELKAY PLASTIC S C OM PANY, INC ., a C a l ifornia c orporat ion, De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 15-55331 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-10033-R SW L-JEM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia R ona ld S.W . Le w , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 6, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : D.W . NELSON a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KOR M AN, ** Distric t Judge
. C a lte x Pla stic s, Inc
. (“ C a lte x” ) a ppe a ls from

a de c ision by

the distric t c ourt
a fte r a be nc h tria l dismi ssing c la im s tha t Elka y Pla s tic s, Inc . (“ Elka

y ” ) e nga ge d in 

# FIL ED
D EC 13 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Edwa rd R . Korm an, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.fa lse a d

ve rtising under the La

nha m Ac t, 15 U.S.C . § 1125(a), unfa ir c om pe tition unde r C a l. B us. & Prof. C ode § 17200, a nd fa lse a dve rtising under C a l. B us. & Prof. C ode
. § 17500. As the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c ts, we do not re c ount the m he re . W e a ffirm
. C a lte x c la im s tha

t Elka y ’ s a dve rtise m e nts tha

t its produc t “ m e e t s” the M ILPFR -81705 Ty

pe III m ilita

ry spe c ific ation (“ 8 1705 Spe c .” ) c onstitute fa lse
a dve rtising under the La

nham Ac t, 15 U.S.C . § 1125(a). To prove a prima fac ie
c a se for fa lse a d

ve rtising under § 1125(a), a pla intiff m

u st show “that the sta

te m e nt
wa s lite ra lly

fa lse , e ithe r on its fa c e or by ne c e ssa ry im plic ation, or tha

t the sta te m e nt wa s lite ra lly

true but like ly

to m isle a d or c onfuse c ustom e rs.” Southland Sod Farms v . Stov e r

Se e d C o. , 108 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th C ir. 1997). C a lte x a rgue s tha t the only wa y for a produc t to “ m e e t” the 81705 Spe c . is for it to beform a lly

te ste d by the De pa rtm e nt of the Navy

(“ D ON” ) an d qua lifie d to tha t spe c ific ation. It is undispute d tha t the DON ne ve r te s te d Elka y ’ s produc t for form a l qua l ific ation. Thus C a lte x a rgue s tha t Elka y ’ s a d ve rtise m e nts tha

t its produc t “ m e e ts” the 81705 Spe c . a re lite ra lly

fa lse
. Howe v e r, C a lte x’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t a produc t c annot “ m e e t” the 81705 Spe c . without form a l DON te sting ignore s tha t produc t te sting c an oc c ur outsideof the form a l DON qua lific ation proc e ss. In short, there is a distinc tion be twe e n
2“ m e e ting” the re quire m e nts of a spe c ific ation a

nd be ing “ qua lifie d” unde r a spe c ific ation. C a lte x did not subm

it a ny e vide nc e showing tha

t C a lte x ’ s own te sts prove that Elka y ’ s produc ts do not me e t the 81705 Spe c or indic ating theunre lia bility of Elka y ’ s produc t te sts. C a l te x a lso did not provide any a ffirm ative e vide nc e to show tha t Elka y ’ s a d ve rtise m e nts we re m isle a ding to c ustom e rs. Se e W illiam H. Morris C o. v . Group W

, Inc
. , 66 F.3d 255, 258 (9th C ir. 1995). Ac c ordingly , the tria l c ourt did not err in c onc luding tha t C a lte x did not me e t its burde n to show tha t Elka y ’ s a dve rtise m e nts viola

te d the La nha m Ac t. C a lte x’ s lite ra l fa lsity

argum e nts unde r its La

nha m Ac t c la i m

a pply to the Se c tion 17500 a

n d 17200 c la i m s a s we ll, a nd fa il for the sa

m e re a sons. AFFIRM E D
.

3