Scotsman makes ice machines.
Almblad allegedly “determined that ice made from commercial machines,
like Scotsman’s machines, was contaminated ‘because the design of such machines
allowed for the intake of sewer gas’ during the ice manufacturing process,”
told Scotsman and other ice machine manufacturers about this, and invesnted a
device that would eliminate this contamination, offering it ot Scotsman for
licensing. In response, Scotsman
allegedly defamed him and falsely asserted that its products didn’t have that
design defect and that Almblad made false claims about his own inventions.
A standards organization held a phone conference among
representatives of ice machine makers and the general public that allegedly
disseminated Scotsman’s defamatory written statement. The statement indicated Scotsman
“appreciate[d] the opportunity to address Mr. Almblad’s erroneous claims and
mischaracterizations that are meant to serve his commercial purpose.” It went
on: “[O]ur testing refutes Mr. Almblad’s claims. In particular, his claim that
gases are being sucked from floor drains into the equipment is just flat wrong.
None of our machines do this .... Mr. Almblad has no scientific or medical
evidence, and our experts cannot find anything in any medical or scientific
study, describing a single occurrence in which airborne contamination infected
an ice machine and caused an illness” and stated that “Mr. Almblad
misinterprets the FDA Food Code to suit his commercial purposes.”
Almblad alleged that these statements discouraged potential
licensees from transacting with him.
Defendants moved to dismiss Almblad’s defmation claim,
arguing that Scotsman’s statements were pure opinion. This was premature. He pled falsity and damage; he was not
required to provided detailed factual allegations as long as defendants had
fair notice of the claim. (I’m not sure
this is responsive to the argument that what was said was opinion, though by
this logic a renewed motion for summary judgment on fact/opinion might work.)
As for the Lanham Act claim, defendants argued that Almblad
lacked standing because he wasn’t a direct competitor—an issue the Supreme
Court will (it is to be hoped) soon decide, but for the moment the Seventh
Circuit requires direct competition or at least a “discernible competitive
injury,” though those things aren’t actually the same. The complaint didn’t allege direct
competition. Instead, Almblad alleged that he made his device available for
licensing. Almblad argued that his
device, an air filter, would directly compete with Scotsman’s products, which
are designed to treat slime, mold, and airborne microorganisms in its ice
machines. But he never alleged the
nature of his business: the court discerned that he was a patentholder who
licensed into the industry. Thus, he
didn’t plead facts plausibly establishing competition.
No comments:
Post a Comment