Court Opinion

ID: 9959746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 16:00:43.022738+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:51.716892
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-5046     Document: 010111031168      Date Filed: 04/12/2024   Page: 1
                                                                            FILED
                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                       PUBLISH                          Tenth Circuit

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      April 12, 2024

                                                                    Christopher M. Wolpert
                            FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                       Clerk of Court
                          _______________________________________

  I DIG TEXAS, LLC,

        Plaintiff Counterclaim
        Defendant - Appellee,

  v.                                                         No. 23-5046

  KERRY CREAGER,

        Defendant - Appellant,

  CREAGER SERVICES, LLC,

        Defendant Counterclaimant
        Third-Party Plaintiff -
        Appellant,

  v.

  THOMAS MAREK; MARY
  MAREK,

        Third-Party Defendants -
        Appellees.

  DIGITAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION,

        Amicus Curiae.
                   __________________________________________

        APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
           FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
                 (D.C. No. 4:22-CV-00097-CVE-JFJ)
                 __________________________________________
Appellate Case: 23-5046   Document: 010111031168   Date Filed: 04/12/2024   Page: 2

 Evan W. Talley (Douglas J. Sorocco, Jim V. John, and Jacob Oliphant with
 him on the briefs), Dunlap Codding, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for
 Appellants.

 Zachary A.P. Oubre (Ronald T. Shinn Jr. with him on the briefs), McAfee
 & Taft, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellees.

 Andrew Grimm, Digital Justice Foundation, Omaha, Nebraska, for Amicus
 Curiae.
                 __________________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, McHUGH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
               ___________________________________________

 BACHARACH, Circuit Judge.
              ___________________________________________

       This appeal involves advertisements pitting competitors against each

 other. In the pertinent advertisements, one seller targeted consumers

 wanting to buy American-made products. To target these consumers, the

 seller used copyrighted photographs of a competitor’s products to

 underscore their connection to China. These advertisements led to claims

 under the Copyright Act and the Lanham Act.

       The Copyright Act allows monetary relief when the improper use of

 copyrighted images leads to damages or profits. See Part 3(c), below. The

 profits can be either direct or indirect. See Part 3(c), below. Here the claim

 involves indirect profits. To recover, the claimant needed to show a nexus

 between the improper use of copyrighted images and profits. See Part 3(c),

 below. The question here is whether the claimant could make that showing

 without tying the copyrighted images to any of the infringer’s profits. We

                                        2
Appellate Case: 23-5046   Document: 010111031168   Date Filed: 04/12/2024   Page: 3

 answer no because the absence of a proven nexus would require us to

 speculate about the possibility of any profits from use of the copyrighted

 images.

       The advertisements also led to claims under the Lanham Act. These

 claims mainly involve the advertisements encouraging consumers to buy

 products that are American-made. At issue is the truth or falsity of the

 characterization of products as American-made. Is a boast about American-

 made products literally false when the business assembles products in the

 United States but uses some foreign components? We answer no because

 the boast itself is ambiguous.

 1.    I Dig Texas uses copyrighted photographs to advertise.

       This appeal involves competition between distributors of

 construction equipment called skid steer attachments. 1 One company calls

 itself I Dig Texas and sells attachments called Texas Post Drivers. A

 1
       The parties state that

             “[s]kid steers are construction equipment used for various
              purposes such as digging or hauling materials” and

             the parties sell attachments to the skid steers, “such as auger
              attachments, brush cutter attachments, and post driver
              attachments.”

 Appellants’ App’x vol. II, at 230 n.1; see also id. at 404.

                                        3
Appellate Case: 23-5046   Document: 010111031168   Date Filed: 04/12/2024   Page: 4

 competitor, Creager Services, sells attachments called Montana Post

 Drivers.

       I Dig Texas tried to appeal to consumers’ preference for American-

 made products. To do so, I Dig Texas used Creager’s photographs of

 Montana Post Drivers:

 These products are made in China.

                                        4
Appellate Case: 23-5046   Document: 010111031168   Date Filed: 04/12/2024   Page: 5

       I Dig Texas promoted its products by discouraging consumers from

 buying products, like Creager’s, that had been made in China. So I Dig

 Texas advertised by combining Creager’s photographs of its skid steer

 attachments with text imploring consumers to buy products that had been

 made in the United States rather than in China:

 2.    The district court grants summary judgment to I Dig Texas on
       Creager’s federal claims.

       In district court, Creager claimed that (1) the use of these

 photographs had constituted copyright infringement and (2) the

 accompanying text had misrepresented the origin of I Dig Texas’s

 products. For these claims, Creager argued that

             the use of its photographs had violated the Copyright Act and

             the misrepresentations had violated the Lanham Act.

                                        5
Appellate Case: 23-5046   Document: 010111031168   Date Filed: 04/12/2024   Page: 6

 In addition, Creager asserted state-law claims for deceptive trade practices,

 tortious interference, and unfair competition. I Dig Texas had also asserted

 its own state-law claims for deceptive trade practices, tortious interference

 with business relations, unfair competition, and defamation. The district

 court granted summary judgment to I Dig Texas on Creager’s federal

 claims and remanded all of the state-law claims to state court.

 3.    Creager failed to present evidence of any profit from the use of
       its photographs.

       The elements of a claim for copyright infringement are

             the plaintiff’s ownership of a valid copyright and

             the defendant’s violation of an exclusive ownership right.

 Diversey v. Schmidly, 738 F.3d 1196, 1204 (10th Cir. 2013). In district

 court, I Dig Texas sought summary judgment on this claim based on an

 affirmative defense (fair use) and a failure to establish a nexus between

 profits and the use of Creager’s photographs.

       a.     We consider the possibility of affirming based on Creager’s
              failure to establish a nexus.

       The district court relied on I Dig Texas’s affirmative defense of fair

 use and declined to address the existence of a nexus between the use of

 Creager’s photographs and the making of a profit. But we have discretion

 to consider affirming based on the failure to prove a nexus if this “ground

 [is] adequately supported by the record.” Elkins v. Comfort, 392 F.3d 1159,

                                        6
Appellate Case: 23-5046   Document: 010111031168    Date Filed: 04/12/2024   Page: 7

 1162 (10th Cir. 2004). To determine whether to exercise this discretion, we

 consider whether

             the parties briefed the issue here and in district court,

             the issue involves a question of law rather than fact, and

             the parties had an opportunity to develop the record.

 Id.

       All these factors support consideration. The parties briefed the issue

 of a nexus both here and in district court. Because this issue arises on

 summary judgment, the court’s inquiry involves a question of law on the

 existence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Wise v. DeJoy, 71 F.4th

 744, 752 (10th Cir. 2023). To answer that inquiry, we have a fully

 developed record because the parties had an opportunity to present the

 district court with all of their material evidence bearing on I Dig Texas’s

 profits from the use of Creager’s photographs. Stewart v. City of Okla.

 City, 47 F.4th 1125, 1132 n.5 (10th Cir. 2022). We thus consider whether

 to affirm the award of summary judgment based on Creager’s failure to

 present evidence of a nexus between I Dig Texas’s profits and use of

 Creager’s photographs.

       b.     We consider the availability of summary judgment based on
              the standard applicable in district court.

       Though the district court decided the availability of summary

 judgment, the court didn’t address the issue involving a nexus between

                                         7
Appellate Case: 23-5046   Document: 010111031168   Date Filed: 04/12/2024   Page: 8

 I Dig Texas’s profits and the use of Creager’s photographs. Without a

 ruling on the issue of a nexus, we must decide the issue in the first

 instance.

       Summary judgment would be appropriate upon a showing by I Dig

 Texas “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [it] is

 entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). To assess

 that showing, we must view the evidence and all justifiable inferences in

 the light most favorable to Creager. See Wise, 71 F.4th at 748.

       c.     The copyright claim required a nexus between the
              infringement and indirect profits.

       For copyright infringement, the plaintiff can recover based either on

 its own damages or on the infringer’s profits. Harris Mkt. Rsch. v.

 Marshall Mktg. & Commc’ns, Inc., 948 F.2d 1518, 1524 (10th Cir. 1991).

 Creager seeks recovery based on I Dig Texas’s profits rather than damages.

       The profits can be either direct or indirect. E.g., William A. Graham

 Co. v. Haughey, 568 F.3d 425, 442 (3d Cir. 2009); Andreas v. Volkswagen

 of Am., Inc., 336 F.3d 789, 796 (8th Cir. 2003); Mackie v. Rieser, 296 F.3d

 909, 914 (9th Cir. 2002). The profits would be considered direct, for

 example, when an infringer sells the copyrighted work itself. Haughey,

 568 F.3d at 442; Leonard v. Stemtech Int’l Inc., 834 F.3d 376, 394 n.16 (3d

 Cir. 2016). And the profits would be considered indirect, for example,

 when the infringer

                                        8
Appellate Case: 23-5046   Document: 010111031168   Date Filed: 04/12/2024   Page: 9

             enhances operations by infringing on a copyright, Haughey,
              568 F.3d at 442, or

             adds sales because its advertisements included copyrighted
              images, Andreas, 336 F.3d at 796; Mackie, 296 F.3d at 916.

       Creager relies on indirect profits. To prevail, Creager admittedly

 bore the initial burden to show a nexus between I Dig Texas’s infringement

 and making of a profit. Bonner v. Dawson, 404 F.3d 290, 294 (4th Cir.

 2005); Andreas, 336 F.3d at 796; Mackie, 296 F.3d at 915; Univ. of Colo.

 Found. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 196 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see

 Appellants’ Reply Br. at 41–42 (Creager’s acknowledgment that it bore the

 burden to prove a nexus). That showing must go beyond speculation. See

 Mackie, 296 F.3d at 915–16.

       d.     Creager didn’t present evidence of a nexus between I Dig
              Texas’s profits and the infringement.

       In district court, I Dig Texas argued that Creager hadn’t shown a

 nexus between the profits and use of the photographs. In responding,

 Creager relied on I Dig Texas’s use of two photographs in advertisements.

 But Creager didn’t present any evidence of profits from the use of these

 photographs.

       The photographs did depict Creager’s skid steer attachments. But

 there’s no evidence that I Dig Texas sold any more products because the

 advertisements had included these photographs. Without that evidence,

 Creager failed to show a nexus.

                                        9
Appellate Case: 23-5046   Document: 010111031168   Date Filed: 04/12/2024   Page: 10

        Creager argues that I Dig Texas had elsewhere failed to quantify its

  profits from the infringing photographs. But this argument conflates two

  separate inquiries. Creager admittedly bore the burden to show a nexus

  between the use of the copyrighted images and the making of a profit. See

  Part 3(c), above. If Creager had satisfied that burden, the court could

  presume that all of I Dig Texas’s profits had come from the infringement

  without evidence that some of the profits had come from other sources. See

  Andreas v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 336 F.3d 789, 796 (8th Cir. 2003)

  (“The burden of establishing that profits are attributable to the infringed

  work often gets confused with the burden of apportioning profits between

  various factors contributing to the profits.”). But this presumption doesn’t

  arise until the claimant (Creager) satisfies its threshold burden to establish

  a nexus. See id.

        The Ninth Circuit addressed a similar issue in Mackie v. Rieser,

  296 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2002). There the claimant alleged an infringing

  image on one page in a promotional booklet. 296 F.3d 909, 912–13

  (9th Cir. 2002). In alleging indirect profit from that image, the plaintiff

  presented expert testimony that the infringer had expected a 1.5% profit

  from the booklet as a whole. Id. The Court of Appeals held that this expert

  testimony wouldn’t satisfy the plaintiff’s threshold burden of showing that

                                        10
Appellate Case: 23-5046   Document: 010111031168      Date Filed: 04/12/2024   Page: 11

  anyone bought from the infringer because its promotional booklet had

  included a single infringing image. Id. at 916. 2

        The same is true here. Unlike the claimant in Mackie, Creager

  presented no evidence that I Dig Texas had made any money from the

  advertisements bearing the copyrighted images; Creager showed only that

  I Dig Texas had included copyrighted images in its advertising. But

  Creager didn’t present evidence that anyone had bought something from

  I Dig Texas because of these advertisements. And even if someone had

  bought something from I Dig Texas based on these advertisements, there’s

  no reason to believe that the two photographs would have made a

  difference to any consumers.

        Given Creager’s failure to show a connection between the

  photographs and I Dig Texas’s profits, we affirm the award of summary

  judgment based on the absence of a nexus.

  4.    I Dig Texas’s advertisements aren’t literally false.

        Creager also invoked the Lanham Act, claiming false advertising and

  false designation of origin. On these claims, Creager needed to show that

  I Dig Texas had “made a false or misleading description of fact or

  2
        The court explained: “Even if such an aspirational yield percentage
  could be applied to determine how many people subscribed because of the
  brochure, such a rudimentary analysis cannot determine how many of those
  individuals subscribed because of Rieser’s work.” Mackie, 296 F.3d at 916
  (emphasis in original).

                                        11
Appellate Case: 23-5046   Document: 010111031168    Date Filed: 04/12/2024   Page: 12

  representation of fact in a commercial advertisement.” Vitamins Online,

  Inc. v. Heartwise, Inc., 71 F.4th 1222, 1233 (10th Cir. 2023) (quoting

  Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Sycamore, 29 F.4th 630, 643 (10th Cir.

  2022)).

        a.    We consider literal falsity in the first instance.

        The district court concluded that Creager had failed to show a false

  or misleading fact in I Dig Texas’s advertisements. For this conclusion, the

  district court reasoned that I Dig Texas’s advertisements had explained the

  use of foreign components. Creager argues that this explanation didn’t

  exist in the advertisements underlying the claims.

        But I Dig Texas urges affirmance on alternative grounds, arguing that

  the advertisements weren’t literally false. Again, we may affirm on

  alternative grounds supported by the record after considering whether

             the parties briefed the issue here and in district court,

             the issue involves a question of law rather than fact, and

             the parties had an opportunity to develop the record.

  Elkins v. Comfort, 392 F.3d 1159, 1162 (10th Cir. 2004).

        All these factors support consideration of the alternative ground to

  affirm. Both parties briefed literal falsity in district court and on appeal.

  And when we review the grant of summary judgment, we conduct a legal

  inquiry on the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Wise v.

  DeJoy, 71 F.4th 744, 752 (10th Cir. 2023). For that inquiry, our record is
                                        12
Appellate Case: 23-5046   Document: 010111031168    Date Filed: 04/12/2024   Page: 13

  fully developed because the parties had a chance to present whatever

  evidence they wished on the truth or falsity of I Dig Texas’s

  advertisements. See Stewart v. City of Okla. City, 47 F.4th 1125, 1132 n.5

  (10th Cir. 2022).

          Because our inquiry differs from that of the district court, we decide

  in the first instance whether I Dig Texas was entitled to summary judgment

  on the issue of falsity. See id. at 1132–36 (concluding that no genuine

  dispute of material fact existed on an issue that differed from the issue

  underlying the district court’s grant of summary judgment). Summary

  judgment is appropriate if I Dig Texas demonstrates that there is no

  genuine dispute of material fact on literal falsity. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

  We view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in Creager’s

  favor. See Wise, 71 F.4th at 748.

          b.   Creager needed to show that the statements were literally
               false.

          Under the Lanham Act, a claimant can show falsity in one of two

  ways:

          1.   The statement is literally false.

          2.   The statement is literally true, but “likely to mislead or confuse
               customers.”

  Vitamins Online, Inc. v. Heartwise, Inc., 71 F.4th 1222, 1235 (10th Cir.

  2023) (quoting Zoller Lab’ys, LLC v. NBTY, Inc., 111 F. App’x 978, 982

                                         13
Appellate Case: 23-5046   Document: 010111031168   Date Filed: 04/12/2024    Page: 14

  (10th Cir. 2004) (unpublished)). Creager relies on the literal falsity of

  I Dig Texas’s advertisements.

        A statement can be literally false only if it is unambiguous. See Int’l

  Code Council, Inc. v. UpCodes Inc., 43 F.4th 46, 57 (2d Cir. 2022);

  Groupe SEB USA, Inc. v. Euro-Pro Operating LLC, 774 F.3d 192, 198

  (3d Cir. 2014); Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N.V.E., Inc., 694 F.3d 723,

  737 (6th Cir. 2012). So an ambiguous statement can’t be literally false. See

  Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 497 F.3d 144, 158 (2d Cir.

  2007) (“[I]f the language or graphic is susceptible to more than one

  reasonable interpretation, the advertisement cannot be literally false.”

  (collecting cases)). For example, a statement without objective meaning

  can’t be literally false. See Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Sycamore,

  29 F.4th 630, 644–47 (10th Cir. 2022) (stating that a representation can be

  actionable only if it’s objectively capable of being determined to be true or

  false).

        c.    The statements about the place of manufacture were
              ambiguous.

        Creager points to various advertisements about where I Dig Texas’s

  products had been made. For example, Creager presented evidence of

  advertisements stating that I Dig Texas’s products had been made in

  America or in the United States. So we must inquire whether these

  advertisements were ambiguous. That inquiry is a question of law. See

                                        14
Appellate Case: 23-5046   Document: 010111031168    Date Filed: 04/12/2024    Page: 15

  Am. Council of Certified Podiatric Physicians & Surgeons v. Am. Bd. of

  Podiatric Surgery, Inc., 185 F.3d 606, 615 n.2 (6th Cir. 1999) (stating that

  ambiguity of a statement entails a question of law); see also Allsup, Inc. v.

  Advantage 2000 Consultants Inc., 428 F.3d 1135, 1138 (8th Cir. 2005) (“A

  literally false statement can be determined as a matter of law . . . .”).

        We must decide this issue of law based on the undisputed evidence

  about the making of I Dig Texas’s products. Some had been assembled in

  the United States, others in China. Even for the products that I Dig Texas

  had assembled in the United States, some components had come from

  overseas. For example, I Dig Texas had used a nitrogen power cell made in

  China. And some of the nuts and bolts had come from Canada.

        But what does it mean to make a product in the United States or in

  America? Did I Dig Texas make a literally truthful statement because it

  assembled some products in the United States?

        Creager argues that the advertisements were false because some of

  the components had come from other countries. But the term make could

  refer either to the origin of the components or to the assembly of the

  product itself. For example, if Chrysler says that its cars are American-

  made, someone might regard the statement as truthful if Chrysler

  assembles the cars in the United States even if some components came

  from overseas.

                                        15
Appellate Case: 23-5046   Document: 010111031168   Date Filed: 04/12/2024   Page: 16

        The same could be true of I Dig Texas’s advertisements. Even if

  some components had come from China or Canada, I Dig Texas assembled

  some of its products in the United States. I Dig Texas’s advertisements are

  thus ambiguous when they say that the products are made in the United

  States or in America. 3 With this ambiguity, the advertisements cannot be

  literally false. See Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N.V.E., Inc., 694 F.3d 723,

  736–37 (6th Cir. 2012) (concluding that a statement could not be literally

  false because it was ambiguous on whether it referred to one or multiple

  products).

        But Creager also argues that I Dig Texas represented that all its

  products had been made in the United States. For this argument, Creager

  points out that I Dig Texas sold some products that had been assembled

  overseas or that had included foreign components. The resulting question

  3
        At summary judgment, Creager invoked a Federal Trade Commission
  policy statement on designation that a product had originated in the United
  States. Appellants’ App’x vol. IV, at 880. Even if the FTC policy were
  otherwise instructive, it would not bind us when addressing false
  advertising under the Lanham Act. See FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.,
  380 U.S. 374, 385 (1965); B. Sanfield, Inc. v. Finlay Fine Jewelry Corp.,
  168 F.3d 967, 973 (7th Cir. 1999). And even if we were to consider the
  FTC policy, it acknowledges the absence of a “single ‘bright line’ to
  establish when a product is or is not . . . made in the United States.”
  62 Fed. Reg. 63,756, 63,768 (Dec. 2, 1997). Given the absence of a “bright
  line,” the FTC considers multiple factors, including the place of the final
  assembly and the nature of any foreign components. Id. at 63,768–69. So
  the FTC policy doesn’t remove the ambiguity of the phrase made in the
  United States or American-made.

                                        16
Appellate Case: 23-5046   Document: 010111031168   Date Filed: 04/12/2024   Page: 17

  is whether I Dig Texas ever represented that all its products had been made

  in the United States.

        Creager answers yes because I Dig Texas said on its website: “We

  Provide 100% American Made Skid Steer Attachments.” Appellants’ App’x

  vol. III, at 530. Creager argues that by putting this statement on the

  website, I Dig Texas implied that all of its skid steer attachments had been

  made entirely in America, assembled domestically from domestic

  components.

        Granted, a statement can be literally false by necessary implication.

  Vitamins Online, Inc. v. Heartwise, Inc., 71 F.4th 1222, 1235 (10th Cir.

  2023). But again, an ambiguity exists in the reference to 100%. The

  reference could mean, as Creager urges, that 100% of I Dig Texas’s skid

  steer attachments had been assembled in America with American

  components.

        But the reference could also mean that only some of the products

  consist entirely of domestic components assembled in the United States.

        Or 100% could refer only to assembly of the final product rather than

  the origin of the components. So when the assembly takes place in America

  with some foreign components, someone might reasonably consider the

  product 100% American-made. With this interpretation, the statement on

  the website could mean only that I Dig Texas sold some skid steer

                                        17
Appellate Case: 23-5046   Document: 010111031168     Date Filed: 04/12/2024    Page: 18

  attachments that had been assembled domestically (without any

  representation about the origin of the components).

        The statement on I Dig Texas’s website is thus just as ambiguous as

  the advertisements. 4 Given that ambiguity, the statement on I Dig Texas’s

  website doesn’t necessarily imply a literal falsehood about the origin of the

  products. 5

        d.      The patriotic symbols are ambiguous because they can’t
                objectively be verified as true or false.

        Creager also argues that I Dig Texas used patriotic symbols (like an

  American flag) to imply that the products had been made in the United

  States. Granted, patriotic symbols could imply that the products were

  4
         I Dig Texas also contends that the statement on its website was not
  literally false because it sold some products made entirely in the United
  States, including American-made components. But I Dig Texas

               relies on evidence not included in its statement of undisputed
                material facts and

               made this argument for the first time in its reply brief for
                summary judgment.

  We need not address these procedural aspects, however, because we regard
  the statement as ambiguous.
  5
         The district court reasoned that Creager’s versions of the
  advertisements had been incomplete because the complete versions had
  acknowledged the use of foreign components. Creager disagrees, arguing
  that it relied on advertisements that differed from the advertisements that
  I Dig Texas submitted to the district court. We need not address the
  versions of the advertisements that I Dig Texas submitted in district court.

                                          18
Appellate Case: 23-5046   Document: 010111031168   Date Filed: 04/12/2024   Page: 19

  American-made. But the symbols couldn’t objectively be verified as true or

  false. As a result, the use of American symbols was ambiguous and

  couldn’t render the advertisements literally false.

        We addressed a similar issue in Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v.

  Sycamore, 29 F.4th 630 (10th Cir. 2022). There a bakery advertised its

  loaves of bread as “Fresh. Local. Quality.” Id. at 646. The issue was

  whether the word local could be considered literally false. We answered

  no. Local could mean different things—local workers, local materials,

  locally based, or involvement with local organizations. Id. at 644. Though

  the word implied that the loaves had been made in the same community, no

  one could verify the objective truth of the advertisement’s reference to the

  loaves as local because the word was ambiguous. Id. at 646–47.

        The same is true of the patriotic symbols in I Dig Texas’s

  advertisements. The symbols bore an implication, like the word local in the

  bakery’s advertisement for its loaves of bread. But no one could verify the

  objective truthfulness of the word local because the word could mean

  different things, and the same is true of I Dig Texas’s patriotic symbols.

  So those symbols are ambiguous and cannot render the advertisements

  literally false.

                                      * * *

        Viewed in the light most favorable to Creager, the evidence does not

  support a finding of literal falsity. Because Creager has argued only literal

                                        19
Appellate Case: 23-5046   Document: 010111031168    Date Filed: 04/12/2024   Page: 20

  falsity, I Dig Texas is entitled to summary judgment on the claims under

  the Lanham Act. We therefore uphold the district court’s award of

  summary judgment on these claims.

 5.     The district court did not err in declining supplemental
        jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

        By granting summary judgment to I Dig Texas on the claims of

  copyright infringement, false advertising, and false designation of origin,

  the district court disposed of all the federal claims. 6 With the disposition

  of all the federal claims, the district court declined to exercise

  supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and

  remanded the case to state court. 7 Creager argues that the district court

  abused its discretion by declining supplemental jurisdiction and remanding

  the state-law claims to state court.

        In addressing that argument, we apply the abuse-of-discretion

  standard. See Cohon ex rel. Bass v. N.M. Dep’t of Health, 646 F.3d 717,

  6
        Creager suggests that the district court remanded the claim for an
  injunction under the Lanham Act. But the district court granted summary
  judgment to I Dig Texas on all the claims under the Lanham Act. As a
  result, the grant of summary judgment encompassed the claim for an
  injunction. See Hutchinson v. Pfeil, 105 F.3d 566, 569–70 (10th Cir. 1997)
  (holding that a grant of summary judgment against a defendant seeking
  injunctive relief “amounts to a practical denial of injunctive relief” even if
  the district court does not expressly say so).
  7
        I Dig Texas had initiated the action in state court; Creager removed
  the action to federal court.

                                         20
Appellate Case: 23-5046   Document: 010111031168    Date Filed: 04/12/2024   Page: 21

  723 (10th Cir. 2011). The “district court should normally dismiss

  supplemental state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed,

  particularly when the federal claims are dismissed before trial.” Foxfield

  Villa Assocs., LLC v. Robben, 967 F.3d 1082, 1103 (10th Cir. 2020)

  (quoting United States v. Botefuhr, 309 F.3d 1263, 1273 (10th Cir. 2002)).

        The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

  the remaining state-law claims after considering

             the parties’ efforts to prepare for a federal trial and

             the novelty of the issues raised under Oklahoma law.

        Balancing these factors, the court decided to decline supplemental

  jurisdiction and remand the state-law claims to state court. This decision

  fell within the district court’s discretion. See id. at 1102–03 (concluding

  that the district court didn’t abuse its discretion in remanding the

  remaining claims to state court even though the parties had extensively

  prepared to litigate these claims in federal court). We therefore affirm the

  district court’s decision to (1) decline supplemental jurisdiction over the

  remaining state-law claims and (2) remand these claims to state court.

                                       * * *

        We affirm. The district court did not err by

             granting summary judgment to I Dig Texas on the claims of
              copyright infringement, false advertising, and false designation
              of origin,

                                        21
Appellate Case: 23-5046   Document: 010111031168   Date Filed: 04/12/2024   Page: 22

             declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
              remaining state-law claims, and

             remanding these state-law claims to state court.

                                        22