Purple haze: court declines to recognize contributory false advertising claim

Purple Innovations, LLC v. Honest Reviews, LLC, No. 2:17-cv-138, 2017 WL 3172810 (D. Utah Jul. 25, 2017)

Mostly a jurisdiction case, but defendant GhostBed also successfully moved to dismiss Purple Innovations’ claim for contributory false association and false advertising.  Although the court acknowledged that (1) other circuits have recognized contributory liability under §43(a)(1)(B) and that (2) courts in Utah have recognized contributory infringement liability, it nonetheless declined “to extend” the Lanham Act to allow such an action, with no further analysis.  Look, someone’s got to be the first—or at least should make an argument about why there shouldn’t be contributory liability for false advertising when the rest of the surrounding apparatus is the same as for infringement.