Opinion ID: 709203
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Unfair Competition Claims under the Lanham Act

Text: 31 The defendants also challenge the district court's award of summary judgment to Lipton on his unfair competition claim under Sec. 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(a). Subsection (A) of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(a)(1) 7 prohibits any misrepresentation likely to cause confusion as to the source or the manufacturer of a product. Lipton alleges that the defendants engaged in the prohibited practice of reverse passing off--that is, he claims that Wein and AWE attempted to sell Lipton's original compilation under Wein's own name, in violation of the Lanham Act. 32 A successful claim for reverse passing off under the Lanham Act requires that the plaintiff prove (1) that the work at issue originated with the plaintiff; (2) that origin of the work was falsely designated by the defendant; (3) that the false designation of origin was likely to cause consumer confusion; and (4) that the plaintiff was harmed by the defendant's false designation of origin. Waldman Publishing Corp. v. Landoll, Inc., 43 F.3d 775, 781-85 (2d Cir.1994). 33 In the instant case, the district court based its finding of a Lanham Act violation on the fact that the copyright notices on the infringing products were false designations of origin. We find that, as a matter of law, a false copyright notice alone cannot constitute a false designation of origin within the meaning of Sec. 43(a) of the Lanham Act. 34 In Kregos v. Associated Press, 937 F.2d 700, 710-11 (2d Cir.1991), we rejected a plaintiff's attempt to turn its successful copyright claim into a Lanham Act claim for false designation of origin. That case involved a dispute over a form used to display baseball pitching statistics created and distributed by the plaintiff, Kregos, and copied and published by the defendants, Sports Features Syndicate, Inc. (Sports Features) and the Associated Press (AP). AP published the copied form with Sports Features' copyright, in violation of Kregos' protected interest in his original form. Although we found a copyright violation, we rejected Kregos' Lanham Act claim, holding that [i]f Kregos is simply saying that the notice is false in claiming creation by Sports Features in that the form is, under the copyright law, an infringement of Kregos' form, we reject his attempt to convert all copyright claims into Lanham Act violations. Id. at 711. Because the district court based its finding of a false designation of origin solely on the presence of Wein's false copyright notice, we reverse the award of summary judgment to Lipton on its Lanham Act claim. 35 In doing so, we offer no opinion as to whether or not there might be other grounds to support a Lanham Act claim based on false designation of origin. We merely hold that the existence of a false copyright notice alone is insufficient. In Waldman, we found that the reproduction of a work with a false representation as to its creator could support a finding of false designation origin where the defendant failed to credit the original creator. Waldman, 43 F.3d at 781. Indeed, this possibility is left open by Kregos itself, in which Chief Judge Newman noted that, although a false copyright alone would be insufficient as a false designation of origin, Kregos could complain ... if Sports Features unfairly competed with him by falsely claiming that its form was originated by some well-known baseball player. Kregos, 937 F.2d at 710; see also Eden Toys, Inc. v. Florelee Undergarment Co., 697 F.2d 27, 37 (2d Cir.1982) (finding Sec. 43(a) liability where copyright notice on infringing product was not merely false, but also made the additional representation that the product was original); Cognotec Services Ltd. v. Morgan Guaranty Trust Co., 862 F.Supp. 45, 51 (S.D.N.Y.1994) (finding no Sec. 43(a) liability based on copyright infringement alone: [t]here must exist some affirmative act whereby [the defendant] falsely represented itself as the owner....). 36 Lipton counters that even if his false designation of origin claim fails, he is entitled to summary judgment on his claim for false advertising pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(a)(1)(B). 8 He argues that the statements made in the Nature catalog copy (that Wein researched the English language to its earliest roots), and in AWE's Animal Congregations promotional brochure (that he thoroughly researched dozens and dozens of animals) were false, material, and misleading. We find that neither statement supports a false advertising claim against Wein or AWE. First, the statements in Nature's catalog are irrelevant, inasmuch as Lipton offers no evidence that these statements originated with Wein and Nature is not a party to this appeal. Second, Wein's general assertions that he conducted thorough research in compiling his list of terms is mere puffing and does not constitute false advertising. See Castrol Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., 987 F.2d 939, 945 (3d Cir.1993). 37 To establish a false advertising claim pursuant to Sec. 43(a) the plaintiff must demonstrate that the message in the challenged advertisement is false. Falsity may be established by proving that (1) the advertising is literally false as a factual matter, or (2) although the advertisement is literally true, it is likely to deceive or confuse consumers. McNeil-P.C.C., Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 938 F.2d 1544, 1549 (2d Cir.1991). Lipton has offered nothing to contradict Wein's assertion that he conducted independent research at the New York Public Library prior to advertising the Animal Congregations line. Furthermore, Wein's general assertion that the research he conducted was thorough[ ] is mere puffing and therefore, not actionable. Subjective claims about products, which cannot be proven either true or false, are not actionable under the Lanham Act. Groden v. Random House, Inc., No. 94 Civ. 1074, 1994 WL 455555, at  5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 1994), aff'd, 61 F.3d 1045 (2d Cir.1995); see Bose Corp. v. Linear Design Labs, Inc., 467 F.2d 304, 310-11 (2d Cir.1972) (finding defendant's claim that its countless hours of research led to the superior quality of its stereo speakers to be largely puffing). Thus, we reverse the district court's summary judgment on Lipton's Lanham Act claims.