unauthorized sales of books as "new" don't violate the Lanham Act, even with default

Global Brother SRI v. Altun, No. CV-25-00426-TUC-SHR, 2026 WL 1413605 (D. Ariz. May 20, 2026)

I don’t blog many false advertising default judgment opinions; this one is different because it denies the motion. Global alleged that it publishes books, including The Lost Book of Herbal Remedies and The Lost Book of Herbal Remedies II. Altun allegedly, without authorization, advertised and sold these books online, including through Amazon and other marketplaces, labeling their condition as “new” and selling them at a “significantly inflated” price, thereby misleading consumers to believe “the listing reflects a premium authorized version or a limited official release.” Global alleged false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act because they are “likely to mislead a significant portion of consumers” and “resale of these works without Plaintiff’s quality control, branding oversight, or packaging integrity renders the products materially different.”

Factors for evaluating whether default judgment should be entered include the merits of the substantive claims: a court must ask whether the complaint stated a claim.

Global failed to show that using “new” to describe the books was literally false. It pointed to no actual differences in defendant’s copies or dissatisfied customers. Global’s lack of authorization or involvement in resales, without more, wasn’t a violation of the Lanham Act.