Ramchandani v. Sani, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2012 WL 556198
(S.D.N.Y.)
Short and sweet opinion; if only more courts thought about standing like this!
The parties sell custom-tailored men's suits that are
manufactured for them in Hong Kong to fill orders placed by customers attracted
through newspaper advertising and whose measurements are taken by the parties
in New York City and elsewhere. Ramchandani alleged that Sani overstated the
nature and quality grades of the fabrics used, producing a substantial
competitive advantage by allowing Sani to charge extremely low prices for
apparently high-quality goods. Sani
moved to dismiss, challenging Ramchandani’s standing on the ground that
Ramchandani hadn’t suffered commercial or competitive injury, because there are
so many Hong Kong tailors that he couldn’t have a reasonable basis for
believing that Sani’s allegedly fraudulent activities would harm him.
The court pointed out that this was a factual argument, and
inappropriate for a motion to dismiss. “The
allegations with respect to the Lanham Act claim are sufficient. Plaintiff's
reasons for apprehension seem entirely reasonable to the Court, and that would
be so even if there are others threatened with the same or similar harm.”
Likewise, the court rejected the alternate argument that no
Lanham Act claim could lie because the alleged misrepresentations fell within
the framework of the Wood [I think Wool] Products Labeling Act, which provides
no private cause of action. The court
found this contention “entirely unconvincing,” since the point of Section 43(a)
was to protect against consumer confusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment