Opinion ID: 815989
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The false advertising counterclaim

Text: The defendants presented a Lanham Act §43(a) false advertising counterclaim, on the ground that Hall’s statements to them that the Tote Towel is “protected by my patent,” while the patent application was still pend24 HALL v. BED BATH ing, was false advertising. Hall responds that his statement was not false because he had a patent application pending, that the statement was not “advertising,” and that the sample towel and packaging were marked “patent pending.” The district court stated that it was “apparent from the pleadings that [Hall’s] representations were not made with the intent to deceive,” and dismissed the counterclaim. West Point Home appeals the dismissal, stating that Lanham Act §43(a) does not require proof of deceptive intent, and that the district court acted incorrectly in dismissing this counterclaim on the pleadings, instead of preserving it for trial. The district court correctly held that no plausible false advertising issue arose from Hall’s statement that the Tote Towel was “protected by my patent” although the patent application was still pending and Hall’s sample towels were marked “patent pending.” See S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Clorox Co., 241 F.3d 232, 238 (2d Cir. 2001) (“In considering a false advertising claim, fundamental to any task of interpretation is the principle that text must yield to context.”) (internal quotations omitted). In the circumstances, Hall’s statement cannot be viewed as even plausibly misleading. The dismissal of this counterclaim is affirmed.