Opinion ID: 693441
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The ODTPA

Text: 36 The district court noted in a footnote that Both parties have agreed that the analysis under the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act is the same as that under Sec. 43(a). Semco argues now that while one section of the ODTPA should be interpreted the same way as the Lanham Act, the entire ODTPA is broader than the Lanham Act, and therefore the Kopp article could be actionable under the ODTPA even if it is not commercial advertising or promotion under the Lanham Act. Since we have held that misrepresentations in the article and elsewhere are actionable under the Lanham Act, we need not address this issue. 37 For the reasons stated above, we REVERSE the summary judgment in favor of Amcast and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.