associating two differently named products can't cause dilution, which requires similar marks

In re Soclean, Inc., Marketing, Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 22-mc-152, MDL No. 3021, 2024 WL 4444819 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 8, 2024)

Previous discussion of MDL. As previously noted, SoClean is a dominant player in the market for medical devices that sanitize continuous positive airway pressure machines (CPAPs), which treat sleep apnea and respiratory conditions. It alleged that the Philips defendants, who make such devices, engaged in false advertising about one of SoClean’s devices in order to deflect blame for the Philips devices’ design defects. Philips counterclaimed for false advertising, trademark dilution, and state-law deceptive trade practices. This opinion adopts in part and rejects in part a special master recommendation that SoClean’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims be denied.

False advertising: SoClean argued that Philips failed to allege adequately causation because there are multiple intervening steps between the alleged consumer deception and Philips’ alleged injury. Philips’ theory was that SoClean’s claim that its device was compatible with the Philips devices was false, which influenced consumers to use SoClean’s device with Philips devices -- thereby damaging Philips’ products by causing the foam to degrade, as well as harming the reputation of Philips’ products, and causing a decline in Philips’ sales.

This satisfied Lexmark and created a factual issue on proximate cause because the alleged harm flowed from SoClean’s own pronouncement that its device was compatible with Philips’ devices. Intervening causes such as the FDA alert about cleaning CPAP machines and Philips’ voluntary recall could affect damages but weren’t enough to warrant dismissal.

Trademark dilution: This requires an association arising from similarities between two marks that causes damage. There is no dilution claim for associating one marked product with a differently marked product. Thus, SoClean’s compatibility chart, which stated that SoClean’s products were “compatible with free adapter” with Philips’ products, could not “lessen the capacity of Philips’ mark to identify and distinguish Philips’ mark from SoClean’s mark.”

New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act: The relevant theories were that (1) SoClean made representations about characteristics its product did not have (i.e., full compatibility); and (2) SoClean made representations about its sponsorship, approval, affiliation or connection with Philips.

As for the first, it was

certainly reasonable to infer that a consumer would understand the references to 'compatibility” to mean that the SoClean device can actually be used with the Philips device without causing harm to the Philips device or to consumers who use both devices together. As Philips analogized, a consumer seeing a claim that a charging cable was compatible with a certain phone would conclude that the cable not only physically fit, but also would “charge their phone without frying the motherboard.”

This was enough at the motion to dismiss stage, as was pleading consumer confusion about affiliation or approval.

SoClean argued that the counterclaims were untimely even under the discovery rule.

Under New Hampshire law, “Once a defendant has established that the statute of limitations would bar an action, the plaintiff has the burden of raising and proving that the discovery rule is applicable to an action that would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations.” On the face of the counterclaims, the action wasn’t brought within three years (the state consumer protection period). Thus, the burden shifted to Philips to plead sufficient facts to plausibly support the application of the discovery rule, and it didn’t explain why it reasonably took so long to reach the conclusion that SoClean’s product increased the risk that Philips foam would degrade. So the state claims were dismissed with leave to amend.

As for the Lanham Act, laches generally can’t be determined on the basis of the pleadings, despite laches being apparent on the face of the counterclaims because of the relevant dates. The Third Circuit is more plaintiff-friendly: the discovery rule has a “fundamentally plaintiff-friendly purpose” and “is grounded in the notion that it is unfair to deny relief to someone who has suffered an injury but who has not learned of it and cannot reasonably be expected to have done so.” And “a plaintiff is not required to plead, in a complaint, facts sufficient to overcome an affirmative defense.” We don’t yet know when Philips knew or reasonably should have known about its counterclaims; at this stage, that helps Philips.