Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—C.D. Cal.: Nutribullet maker continues assault on SharkNinja in false ad suit, (Aug 4, 2016)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

A company that never manufactured or sold a purportedly disparaged line of blenders had standing to bring a Lanham Act false advertising claim against a blender manufacturer over comparison ads, the federal district court in Los Angeles decided. The court concluded that the company pleaded sufficient facts to demonstrate it had standing, based on an alleged injury to its reputation, because the company owned the trademark for the blenders that the manufacturer purportedly disparaged and invested money in manufacturing them. Finding that genuine issues of fact exist in this case, the court denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment (Homeland Housewares, LLC v. SharkNinja Operating LLC, August 2, 2016, Pregerson, D.).

Homeland Housewares, LLC and SharkNinja Operating LLC are competitors in the home blender market. A chart that SharkNinja placed on its packaging for its NutriNinja Pro product constituted false advertising, Homeland claimed, because the chart—labeled "NUTRININJA vs. NUTRIBULLET"—did not specify which Nutribullet model the chart was comparing the NutriNinja product with. Further, the chart was purportedly inaccurate as to various Nutribullet products, Homeland claimed. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and Homeland moved to exclude expert testimony.

The court denied all three motions, finding that there were multiple triable issues of fact.

Standing. SharkNinja claimed that Homeland lacked standing and should be dismissed from the action because Homeland admitted that it never manufactured, marketed, or sold any of the products at issue in this case, and that it consequently lacked a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit. The court rejected this argument, however, finding that Homeland adequately alleged facts regarding injury to its reputation to meet the standing requirement. Even if Homeland did not manufacture the disparaged products, its claim was grounded in allegations that it was the owner of the relevant trademark at the time the action was initiated and that it was the company that invested money into building the Bullet blenders brand.

The case is No. 14-03954 DDP (MANx).

Attorneys: Dylan C. Dang (Trojan Law Offices) for Homeland Housewares LLC and Nutribullet, LLC. Kenneth L. Wilton (Seyfarth Shaw LLP) for SharkNinja Operating LLC.

Companies: Homeland Housewares, LLC; Nutribullet, LLC; SharkNinja Operating LLC

Cases: Advertising CaliforniaNews