Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—D. Del.: Lanham Act alleging false statements in advertising dismissed as conclusory, (May 16, 2025)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

The court found the complaint did not point to specific, “actionable” advertising statements.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed Lanham Act claims alleging false statements of material fact in commercial advertising in a case alleging the corporate takeover of a water and air purification venture. The court found that the complaint made only conclusory allegations as to the allegedly false statements and that no supplemental jurisdiction existed for the complaint’s state law claims (Cooper v. Bellasalma, No. 1:24-cv-00832-MN (D. Del. May 14, 2025)).

Allegations. Stardust 389, Inc., and Airlock 389, Inc., and Christopher H. Cooper filed suit asserting a dozen causes of action—including violation of the Lanham Act, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, fraud, and tortious interference—against 19 defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that, in 2020, Cooper launched the two companies as a water and air purification venture, based on his career experience researching and developing clean energy technology. Airlock was the main operating entity, and Stardust was its general manager. To staff the business, Cooper interacted in various capacities with each of the defendants.

The amended complaint alleged that one of the defendants, a lobbyist, agreed to introduce Cooper to strategic industry professionals to join the companies. Cooper hired Patricia Bellasalma as chief legal officer; she would later challenge Cooper for control of the entities. Bellasalma brought on the lobbyist and a family member to serve in several business roles. Ultimately, the two were appointed to the companies’ boards as Treasurer and Secretary as part of Bellasalma’s coup to eject Cooper from leadership. The complaint further alleged that Bellasalma improperly engaged a third family member and his law office as independent contractors “for Bellasalma’s personal use,” such as using the law office’s mailing address. The four defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and lack of personal jurisdiction.

Lanham Act claims. The complaint asserts Lanham Act violations against each of the defendants. Under the Lanham Act, a defendant may be held liable for making false statements of material fact in commercial advertising. The court found the complaint failed to plausibly allege most, if not all, of the elements to prove such a violation, as it did not point to specific, “actionable” advertising statements. Further, the complaint failed to specify specific goods or services or how they were used in interstate commerce, and it failed to explain how any of the purported statements deceptively influenced a patron’s purchasing decision. The court found the complaint’s conclusory allegations were insufficient to state a claim under the Lanham Act, as the conduct alleged did not constitute commercial advertising or promotion. Most tellingly, none of the assertions are directed to the nature, characteristics, or qualities of the defendants’ services. Instead, the statements are representations about the defendants’ corporate roles, responsibilities, and authority. The court dismissed the Lanham Act claims.

Supplemental jurisdiction. The court found the only bases for original jurisdiction are the Lanham Act claims. Having dismissed those, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims, finding that no prejudice nor much additional expense would result from dismissal that that the claims can be easily filed in state court.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-00832-MN.

Judge: Noreika, M.

Attorneys: Antranig N. Garibian (Garibian Law Offices, P.C.) for Christopher H. Cooper.

Cases: Advertising DelawareNews