Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
False Advertising: Eleventh Circuit Makes It Harder for Franchisees to Bring Cases Against Franchisors
In a battle of fast food restaurants, a local Florida Burger King franchisee sued McDonald's for false advertising, only to have the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rule that the franchisee could not show that it had standing to bring its claim, despite the fact that the franchisee directly competed against McDonald's restaurants. The ruling, Phoenix of Broward Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 489 F.3d 1156 (11th Cir. 2007), states that even direct competitors who allege they have been damaged by false advertisements must also show their damages are not speculative and their claims are unique, before they will be allowed to proceed with their lawsuit. The ruling highlights a split in the circuit courts that may have to be resolved by the Supreme Court, as the ruling differs from the law of other circuits that generally have allowed 'direct competitors' of the advertiser to sue for false advertising as long as they allege they have been injured by the ad.
The Eleventh Circuit ruling illustrates the difficulties franchisees or franchisors may experience in the future when asserting false advertising claims; they will be held to a high standard in order to demonstrate that they have been injured competitively by the ad in question. Further, the decision indicates strong reluctance by courts to have local franchisees sue franchisors for national advertising campaigns. As a practical matter, if franchisees and franchisors suspect that their competitor's ads are false and damaging, they must be proactive in documenting loss of sales and customers, or else they may be denied the right to be made whole, maintain their ability to compete, and protect their reputation.
False Advertising Claims Under the Lanham Act
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.