Court Denies Cross Motions for Summary Judgment in False Advertising Case
May 12, 2010
Michael Atkins in Lanham Act Section 43(a), Seattle Updates

Since I’ve covered it here, here and here, I might as well report that the Western District denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment in Campagnolo S.R.L. v. Full Speed Ahead, Inc., a false advertising case between competing bicycle component manufacturers.

The order is pretty fact-specific, but it involved dueling survey experts who together helped generate genuine issues of material fact when each party’s facts were examined in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

Of interest is the court’s recognition that a party need not prove actual damages to recover under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act.

The court noted: “the Washington Supreme Court has held that ‘nonquantifiable injuries, such as loss of goodwill’ are sufficient to meet the injury element of a CPA claim. Contrary to FSA’s arguments, the more recent decision of Indoor Billboard/Washington, Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Washington, Inc., does not contradict this proposition. That case merely holds that there must be a demonstrable causal link between the misrepresentation and the plaintiff’s injury.”

Trial’s set for June 1.

The case cite is Campagnolo S.R.L. v. Full Speed Ahead, Inc., No. 08-1372 (W.D. Wash. May 11, 2010) (Martinez, J.).

Article originally appeared on Michael Atkins (http://seattletrademarklawyer.com/).
See website for complete article licensing information.