false association wasn't plausible given clear comparative statements

Dynatemp Int’l, Inc. v. R421A, LLC, No. 5:20-CV-142-FL, 2021 WL 3284799 (E.D.N.C. Jul. 30, 2021)

Dynatemp and another company sued defendants for false advertising and related claims; defendant RMS counterclaimed similarly.

Notable holdings: RMS didn’t plausibly allege that plaintiffs falsely designated their goods. Instead, it alleged that their customers displayed a Dynatemp R421A product and the Dynatemp brand alongside RMS’s trade dress and trademarks. But RMS failed to allege any facts that allow the court to infer that these plaintiffs controlled the content on those websites. RMS alleged that their behavior “confused even their own customers,” but this was a conclusory assertion.

The allegations were particularly speculative in light of Dynatemp statements that RMS attached to its counterclaims, such as, “for a number of years we have distributed the Choice® R421A product with a lubricant additive. Recently, we began a transition to producing and distributing our own Dynatemp R421A™ product. It contains a different lubricant that we believe you will find works even better.” Also: “Our new proprietary Dynatemp R421A™ contains a different premium lubricant than Choice® R421A, and it is sold exclusively under our own Dynatemp brand.” And: “[a]s we make our transition to producing and distributing our new Dynatemp R421A™ product and phasing Choice® R421A out of our product line-up, we are continuing to sell our remaining inventory of Choice® 421A.” These statements “reflect an effort to distinguish its products from RMS’s products, to associate its products with the Dynatemp R421A™ brand, and to associate RMS’s R-421A product with RMS’s trade dress and trademarks.”