Opinion ID: 815989
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of

Text: any business, trade or commerce or in the furnish- ing of any service in this state are hereby declared unlawful. Hall’s complaint states that the defendants violated this provision by misappropriating his towel design, and profiting therefrom: ¶69. Defendants’ willful misappropriation of Plaintiff’s product, ideas, and design, while earning illicit profits though unauthorized sales of the Counterfeit Towels amounts to unfair competition under the NY GBL §349(a). New York Business Law precedent establishes that “[a] plaintiff under section 349 must prove three elements: first, that the challenged act or practice was consumeroriented; second, that it was misleading in a material way; and third, that the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act.” Stutman v. Chem. Bank, 95 N.Y.2d 24, 29 (2000). See Maurizio v. Goldsmith, 230 F.3d 518, 521 (2d Cir. 2000) (applying the same three elements). New York law of unfair competition does not require consumer confusion, unlike the Lanham Act count for unfair competition. See Telecom Int’l Am., Ltd. v. AT&T Corp., 280 F.3d 175, 198 (2d Cir. 2001) (“An unfair competition claim under New York law is not . . . dependent upon a showing of confusion or deception as to the origin of a product or service.”). 18 HALL v. BED BATH Hall states that the deceptive act was the claim of the quality of the BB&B “counterfeit” towel. Hall argues that the statement is misleading, and thus a deceptive act under New York GBL §349(a). The district court held that Hall had not shown that he is injured by this statement, even if consumers are misled. The district court dismissed this count on the pleadings. Hall’s pleadings state that “the extent of the imitation of the Tote Towel by Defendants” confuses consumers into associating the Tote Towel with “the inferior Counterfeit Towels,” and that this confusing similarity harms Hall’s reputation. Compl. ¶45. Hall states that the defendants have sold their inferior product to Hall’s military customers, where the confusingly similar appearance could adversely affect Hall’s business. Hall sufficiently pleaded possible injury to his business. We conclude that the count under New York GBL §349(a) was not subject to dismissal on the pleadings.