Stiffel Co. v. Westwood Lighting Group
| Decision Date | 19 March 1987 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 87-523. |
| Citation | 658 F. Supp. 1103 |
| Parties | The STIFFEL COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. WESTWOOD LIGHTING GROUP, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Hugh Latimer, Wald, Harkrader & Ross, Washington, D.C., and Thomas J. Spies, Walder, Sondak, Berkeley & Brogan, P.A., Roseland, N.J., for plaintiff.
Steven P. Pokotilow, Blum, Kaplan, New York City, and Richard Wilkinson, Lowenstein, Sandler, Brochin, Kohn, Fisher & Boylan, Roseland, N.J., for defendant.
This matter was commenced by The Stiffel Company ("Stiffel") against Westwood Lighting Group ("Westwood") seeking temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent injury to Stiffel's business as a result of Westwood advertising alleged to be in violation of the Lanham Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(a) and 1117 (the "Lanham Act"). (Complaint, ¶ 1.) It appears this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 for the alleged violation of the Lanham Act.
On the return date of the Order to Show Cause, February 24, 1987, Stiffel, through its counsel, stipulated that only one issue would be the subject of argument—that the advertising by Westwood is false or misleading.1 It appears Westwood has caused to be published and disseminated, a series of advertisements concerning its lamps. (Complaint Exhibits A through C.) Stiffel alleges these advertisements are false or misleading in that certain claims of superiority made by Westwood in the advertisements are not supported by testing referred to in the ads. (Complaint, ¶¶ 1, 7, 8 and 10; Transcript at 3 and 4.) The first advertisement appeared on January 5, 1987 in a trade publication. It states:
Exhibit A to the Complaint (hereinafter the "Trade Advertisement").
Subsequent advertisements have been placed for publication in two consumer magazines:
Exhibit B to the Complaint (hereinafter the "Consumer Advertisement").
In addition, Stiffel complains of Westwood promotional materials in the form point-of-purchase display units, cards and brochures:
Exhibit C to the Complaint (hereinafter the "Display Unit");
Exhibit C to the Complaint (hereinafter the "Card");
Exhibit C to the Complaint (hereinafter the "Brochure").
Stiffel argues Westwood has repeatedly and falsely represented in the above-quoted advertisements to the trade and consumers and in point-of-purchase literature that "test after test" proves the superiority of Westwood lamps over Stiffel lamps. The genesis of the dispute lies in an effort by the lamp industry to develop a brass plated lamp that would not suffer from problems such as tarnishing, pitting, corrosion or spotting. (See February 6, 1987 Affidavit of L. Keith Niemann, president of Westwood at ¶ 5 (hereinafter "Niemann Affidavit"); February 17, 1987 Affidavit of O. Vincent Scarnicchia, manager of process engineering of Westwood at ¶ 6 (hereinafter "Scarnecchia Affidavit")).
In mid 1985 a competitor of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Summit Tech. v. High-Line Med. Instruments Co.
...of specific or absolute characteristics of a product are actionable." Cook, 911 F.2d at 246 (quoting Stiffel Co. v. Westwood Lighting Group, 658 F.Supp. 1103, 1115 (D.N.J.1987)). Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit has expressly authorized the use of the 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss to determine w......
-
Bracco Diagnostics, Inc. v. Amersham Health, Inc.
...of specific characteristics of a product. As such, it is not actionable." Castrol, 987 F.2d at 945-46; see Stiffel Co. v. Westwood Lighting Group, 658 F.Supp. 1103, 1115 (D.N.J.1987). Bracco contends that GEH's claims are not puffery and that they are actionable under the Lanham Act. The Co......
-
Syncsort Inc. v. Sequential Software, Inc.
...939, 943 (3d Cir.1993); Ditri, 954 F.2d at 872; Sandoz, 902 F.2d at 227; U.S. Healthcare, 898 F.2d at 922; Stiffel Co. v. Westwood Lighting Group, 658 F.Supp. 1103, 1110 (D.N.J. 1987). If a complaint sufficiently alleges literal falsehood, it need not also allege the buying public was misle......
-
U.S. Healthcare, Inc. v. Blue Cross of Greater Philadelphia
...McCarthy Sec. 27:7B. Sometimes this determination may be made from the advertisement on its face. Stiffel Co. v. Westwood Lighting Group, 658 F.Supp. 1103, 1110 (D.N.J.1987); e.g., Ames Publishing, 372 F.Supp. at 12. Nonetheless, "[c]ontext can often be important in discerning the message c......
-
Federal Law of Unfair Competition
...be made from the advertisement on its face,” United States Healthcare, 898 F.2d at 922 (citing Stiffel Co. v. Westwood Lighting Group, 658 F. Supp. 1103, 1110 (D. N.J. 1987); Ames Publ’g v. Walker-Davis Publ’ns, 372 F. Supp. 1, 12 (E.D. Pa. 1974)), “‘content can often be important in discer......