This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Business Law
False Advertising
California Common Law Unfair Competition

Winix Inc., Winix America Inc. v. Dust-Trap Distributions LLC dba Vacuum Savings, Eric Hulli

Published: May 7, 2016 | Result Date: Apr. 18, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:15-cv-08430-SVW-MRW Settlement –  Permanent Injunction

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Steven E. Lauridsen
(Tucker Ellis LLP)

Howard A. Kroll
(Tucker Ellis LLP)


Defendant

Alexis B. Djivre
(Law Office of Gary C Eto)

Gary C. Eto

Joseph A. Dunne


Facts

Winix Inc. and Winix America Inc. sued Dust-Trap Distributions LLC dba Vacuum Savings and Eric Hulli.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs manufactured healthy home appliances, including humidifiers, dehumidifiers, air filters, and filters and was allegedly one of the leading producers of premium performance air cleaners. Defendant Dust-Trap allegedly sold a cheap imitation of plaintiff's products. Defendant allegedly marketed such cheap imitation as "high quality," when they were not, damaging plaintiffs' reputation. Defendants also allegedly made false or misleading statements. Plaintiffs asserted claims for federal false advertising and unfair competition, California common law unfair competition, and California statutory false advertising and unfair competition.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants denied the allegations. Defendant Dust-Trap sold replacement filters for use with plaintiff's products. Defendant allegedly marketed such replacement filters as being the same quality as plaintiff's genuine filters. Plaintiff's only causes of actions were based on the allegedly false statement that the defendant's filters were of the "same quality." Defendant claimed the actual advertising did say the filters were "high quality," but nowhere was that statement alleged to be false, nor is it false, as the products are high-efficiency particulate air filters, which are in fact high quality.

Result

The parties reached a confidential settlement, in which defendants agreed to a permanent injunction from using the allegedly false claims in its advertising and reimbursement of $135,000 in attorney fees and disgorgement of profits. Additionally, defendants were required to include a disclaimer in its advertising and web listings for its products for a period of 12 months.


#104651

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390