The non-commercial nature of Doe’s activities.” In the Ninth Circuit, In addition, “amendment would have also been futile given Reviewing the posts in their totalityĭoes not change the result, but rather reaffirms it.” Such language when addressing the public. Profanity and a reasonable consumer would not think that a university would use Included the use of mark and trade dress. Instagram account at issue was called ASU_covid.parties, “only one post The allegations and of a finding of likelihood of confusion.” Although the It was ok to convert the motion for default judgment toĭismissal because amendment would have been futile “given the implausibility of The Board appealed denial of its motion for default judgment and dismissal of The court of appeals affirmed in a memorandum. Injunctive relief claims also failed because Rawson wouldn’tĪrizona Bd. Stay discovery under those claims until certification was clearer. Law of other states best awaited the class certification stage, though it would
Unjust enrichment was dismissed, and whether she could bring claims under the Seek out and will pay more for “ecologically sustainable” products, citing consumerīreach of express warranty claims also survived, though She believed was a sustainably sourced product, and that generally consumers Rawson sufficiently alleged that she paid a premium for what has specificĪnd far-reaching environmental benefits and may convey that the item. Reinforced by the Green Guides, which found that “nqualified generalĮnvironmental benefit claims.likely convey that the product. Product is made in such a way that minimizes negative impact to theĮnvironment, which can be actionable as something beyond puffery,” a conclusion Inference can be made that ALDI’s label suggests, at a minimum, that its Nor was “sustainable” puffery (at the stage). “To theĬontrary, the BAP label says nothing about sustainability.” To clarify “sustainable” or otherwise evidently connect to it. How it relates to ALDI’s claim of sustainability.” The BAP label didn’t serve “a reasonable consumer might not know what the BAP label means, much less know
Two,” so a reasonable consumer might very well fail to connect them. Labels are not next to one another an unrelated white graphic separates the Label, conferred by an independent third-party nonprofit trade association,īut that didn’t defeat plausible misleadingness, because “the Protection statutes, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.ĪLDI argued that its label wasn’t misleading when read inĬontext with the product’s “Best Aquaculture Practices” (BAP) certification She brought claims under New York General Business Law § 349 (deceptiveĪcts), § 350 (false advertising), violation of 33 other state consumer Instead, “ALDI sources its salmon from large industrial fish farms that useĮnvironmentally destructive and unsustainable practices,” details of which I
0 kommentar(er)
