Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Other Antitrust and Trade Regulation developments, (Mar 16, 2015)

A periodic roundup of other items of interest to the Antitrust and Trade Regulations community:

ADVERTISING—6th Cir.: The dismissal of false advertising and unfair competition claims made by Stolle Machinery Company—an Ohio-based manufacturer and servicer of machinery used to produce food and beverage cans—against a former employee that allegedly moved back to China and started a competing company, was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. Stolle’s claim that the defendants were “passing off” Stolle’s technical know-how, design drawings, trade secrets, and proprietary information as their own, was properly dismissed because the concept of “origin of goods” in the Lanham Act protects only the producer of the tangible goods offered for sale, not the author of any idea or concept embodied in the goods. Further, Stolle’s second argument—that the defendants falsely represented that the products and services they were manufacturing and selling originated with the defendants and had sponsorship, approval, or certain characteristics—was properly rejected because there was no evidence that the defendants had made a literally false statement or that consumers had perceived the advertisement in a misleading way (Stolle Machinery Company, LLC v. RAM Precision Industries, March 16, 2015, Gibbons, J.).

STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—5th Cir.: A mortgagor is not a “consumer” under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act for claims based on a loan modification agreement, the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans has decided. The court reasoned that a loan modification, like the mortgagor’s in this case, is not sought for the acquisition of a good or service, but rather to finance an existing loan on previously acquired property (Dawson v. Bank of America, N.A., March 13, 2015, per curiam).

News: Advertising StateUnfairTradePractices