Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—C.D. Cal.: Cosmetics institute adds Lanham Act claim against tattoo trade association, (Nov 17, 2014)
Law Firms Mentioned:Gordon and Rees LLP | Kesselman Brantly Stockinger LLP
Organizations Mentioned:American Institute of Intradermal Cosmetics, Inc. | Gordon & Rees, LLP | Kesselman Brantly Stockinger, LLP | Society of Permanent Cosmetic Professionals
By Greg Hammond, J.D.
The American Institute of Intradermal Cosmetics, Inc. (AIIC) was granted leave to file a third amended complaint (TAC), adding a Lanham Act claim to its antitrust suit. The federal district court in Los Angeles determined that AIIC acted diligently in seeking amendment, and the defendants would not be prejudiced by the new claim (American Institute of Intradermal Cosmetics, Inc. v. Society of Permanent Cosmetic Professionals, November 14, 2014, Feess, G.).
The Society of Permanent Cosmetic Professionals (SPCP) is a trade association whose members are permanent cosmetic manufacturers, distributors, and technicians that offer services related to a specialized form of tattooing that uses colored pigments. AIIC filed suit against SPCP, alleging that the organization and its members conspired to drive business from AIIC and to monopolize relevant markets connected with the tattoo industry. After receiving insurance policy discovery, AIIC moved for leave to file a TAC to add a Lanham Act claim against SPCP.
The court granted the motion, noting that AIIC was not dilatory and showed good cause to file the TAC, and that SPCP would not be prejudiced by the late filing. Specifically, the court noted that SPCP conceded that it was aware of facts that would support the amended pleading, and that it has no one to blame but itself for any delay in the production of insurance policies that supported the Lanham Act claim. It was noted that false advertising, trade disparagement, and unfair competition underlying the existing Sherman Act claim would be similarly covered by the proposed Lanham Act claim In addition, because the court already modified the scheduling order, allowing for additional discovery, SPCP would not be prejudiced by the TAC.
The case number is CV 12-06887 GAF (JCx).
Attorneys: Amy Thomas Brantly (Kesselman Brantly Stockinger LLP) for The American Institute of Intradermal Cosmetics Inc. Timothy K. Branson (Gordon and Rees LLP) for Society of Permanent Cosmetic Professionals.
Companies: American Institute of Intradermal Cosmetics, Inc.; Society of Permanent Cosmetic Professionals
Cases: Advertising Antitrust CaliforniaNews