About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (July 2018 through April 2019)

handle is hein.ali/retuc0507 and id is 1 raw text is: UNFAIR COMPETITION 3D CHAPTER 1. THE FREEDOM TO COMPETE § 1. General Principles E.D.Pa.2018. Cit. in disc. and in ftn.; subsec. (a) and (b) quot. in disc. Law firm brought an action against competing firm, alleging that defendant conducted an advertising campaign in violation of the Lanham Act by mostly referencing cases that it had referred to other firms, and violated Pennsylvania's Unfair Competition Law by engaging in deceptive marketing and trade-secret misappropriation with an advertising company. This court granted summary judgment for defendant, holding, inter alia, that plaintiff failed to produce evidence that any of defendant's false advertising deceived and influenced customers or proximately caused injury to plaintiff. The court noted that Pennsylvania followed Restatement Third of Unfair Competition § 1 in providing that one business could be liable for harm to the commercial relations of another. Larry Pitt & Associates v. Lundy Law LLP, 294 F.Supp.3d 329, 343. E.D.Pa.2018. Cit. in sup., cit. in ftn., cit. in case cit. in sup. Employer sued former employee, competitor, and competitor's CEO, who was also employee's romantic partner, alleging that employee passed employer's trade secrets to CEO and competitor in breach of her fiduciary duty to employer. This court denied in part competitor's motion to dismiss, holding that employer sufficiently stated a claim for unfair competition against competitor under Restatement Third of Unfair Competition § 1 by alleging that competitor's misappropriation of employer's trade secrets caused harm to employer's commercial relations. The court pointed to employer's allegations that competitor used employer's trade secrets to advance the market position of its competing product and to make purchase decisions and set production goals that increased its profits and visibility in the market. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandhu, 291 F.Supp.3d 659, 679, 680. CHAPTER 2. DECEPTIVE MARKETING § 2. Deceptive Marketing: General Principle E.D.Pa.2018. Cit. in sup. Law firm brought an action against competing firm, alleging that defendant conducted an advertising campaign in violation of the Lanham Act by mostly referencing cases that it had referred to other firms, and violated Pennsylvania's Unfair Competition Law by engaging in deceptive marketing and trade-secret misappropriation with an advertising company. This court granted summary judgment for defendant, holding, inter alia, that plaintiff failed to produce evidence that any of defendant's false advertising deceived and influenced customers or proximately caused injury to plaintiff. The court noted that a claim for deceptive marketing under Pennsylvania law, which followed Restatement Third of Unfair Competition § 2, was nearly identical to a Lanham Act claim. Larry Pitt & Associates v. Lundy Law LLP, 294 F.Supp.3d 329, 343. § 3. Commercial Detriment of Another COPYRIGHT 02019 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved AgI Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.