December 20, 2023
Authored and Edited by Morgan E. Smith; Caroline Segers†
Companies spend an immense amount of time on advertising and sending out messages to consumers. Competitors often do not like or agree with those messages. But can competitors turn that dislike into a claim for false advertising under the Lanham Act? Not always, as the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan recently dismissed false advertising claims brought by energy drink maker Vitamin Energy, Inc. against International IP Holdings, LLC and Innovation Ventures, LLC (“Innovation Ventures”), the makers of 5-HOUR ENERGY energy shots.
The parties’ conflict began as a trademark infringement dispute, when Innovation Ventures sued Vitamin Energy over the use of phrases such as 7 HOURS of ENERGY, which Innovation Ventures asserted was similar to its own 5-HOUR ENERGY trademarks. Vitamin Energy—which began selling VITAMIN ENERGY energy shots in 2017—responded with a claim for false advertising against Innovation Ventures. Vitamin Energy challenged several of Innovation Ventures’ advertisements, including use of the 5-HOUR ENERGY trademark itself and statements that consuming 5-HOUR ENERGY shots would “recharge your batteries all the way back to 100%, fast.”
Innovation Ventures moved to dismiss Vitamin Energy’s false advertising claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. To establish subject matter jurisdiction, Vitamin Energy needed to show (1) that it was within the “zone of interests” protected by the Lanham Act and (2) that its injury was proximately caused by Innovation Ventures’ violation of the Act. The court found that Vitamin Energy was within the “zone of interests” because it asserted that Innovations Ventures’ false and/or misleading advertisements influenced consumers’ purchasing decisions, resulting in both economic and reputational injury to Vitamin Energy. As for proximate cause, Vitamin Energy could not establish that it had been injured by ads that Innovation Ventures discontinued before Vitamin Energy was founded. However, because one of the challenged campaigns was still running on 5-HOUR ENERGY’s YouTube channel and Innovation Ventures was still using the phrase “5-HOUR ENERGY” in its ads, the court found that Vitamin Energy could establish subject matter jurisdiction with respect to those statements.
Moving to the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court noted that a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act requires the plaintiff to allege that: (1) the defendant made false or misleading statements concerning his own product or another’s; (2) the statement actually deceives or tends to deceive a substantial portion of the intended audience; (3) the statement was material in that it would likely influence the deceived consumer’s purchasing decisions; (4) the advertisements were introduced into interstate commerce; and (5) there was some causal link between the challenged statements and harm to the plaintiff.
The court found that the “back to 100% energy” statements were unsupported claims about the 5-HOUR ENERGY product, were literally false, and could be used to establish a Lanham Act violation without evidence that the statements actually misled consumers. The court also found that, even if the statements were not literally false, they could be misleading, as “a reasonable consumer could be deceived by the context of the statements and images in the[] advertisements.”
The court then moved to the fifth element, which required Vitamin Energy to plead a causal link between the challenged advertisements and harm to Vitamin Energy. In its claim, Vitamin Energy described a “hypothetical scenario where an exhausted truck driver, in reliance on Innovation Ventures’ deceptive advertising, consumes a 5-HOUR ENERGY shot under the impression that his/her energy will be immediately restored to 100% for the long drive ahead.” Vitamin Energy also alleged that Innovation Ventures’ false advertising influenced consumer purchasing decisions, resulting in economic and reputational injury to Vitamin Energy. The court ultimately found that Vitamin Energy’s allegations were conclusory and did not include the factual allegations needed to establish a causal link. As a result, it granted Innovation Ventures’ motion to dismiss.
Vitamin Energy attempted to fix its deficient claim by asking the court for permission to amend it, but the court denied the motion as futile. The court observed that “none of [Vitamin Energy’s] arguments allege new facts that establish that [Innovation Ventures’] actions caused [Vitamin Energy’s] alleged injuries. All of [Vitamin Energy’s] arguments are conclusory and speculative.” Because Vitamin Energy’s proposed amended claim still did not make out a proper cause of action for false advertising, the court denied Vitamin Energy leave to amend.
The case is Int’l IP Holdings, LCC v. Vitamin Energy, Inc., Case No. 19-11716 (E.D. Mich., Oct. 4, 2023).
†Caroline Segers is a Law Clerk at Finnegan.
Copyright © 2023 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Federal Circuit IP Blog
March 21, 2024
Ad Law Buzz Blog
“Banning” a Banned Ingredients Claim: NAD’s Application (and Expansion) of the FTC’s Green Guides
March 18, 2024
Articles
Motion to Dismiss: When an Amended Complaint Might Not Moot What You Think
February 29, 2024
Hybrid Conference
7th Annual Legal, Regulatory, and Compliance Forum on Advertising Claims Substantiation
February 8-9, 2024
New York
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.