Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Bhelliom Enterprises Corp. , 529 F. App'x 560 ( 2013 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 13a0612n.06
No. 11-2090
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Jun 28, 2013
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
INNOVATION VENTURES, LLC, doing )
business as Living Essentials, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
)
v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
BHELLIOM ENTERPRISES CORP., ) EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
)
Defendant-Appellee. )
Before: CLAY and COOK, Circuit Judges; OLIVER, District Judge*
COOK, Circuit Judge. In this dispute between competing energy-drink producers, Innovation
Ventures, LLC d/b/a Living Essentials (“LE”), the makers of “5-hour ENERGY,” claims that
Bhelliom Enterprises Corp. (“Bhelliom”) infringed its trademark rights by marketing deceptively
similar “8-HR ENERGY” products and falsely advertising their capabilities. The district court
disagreed on both counts, and LE timely appeals the court’s grant of summary judgment
to Bhelliom. For the following reasons, our intervening decision in a similar case requires
REVERSAL on the trademark-infringement claim. See Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N.V.E., Inc.
(hereinafter “NVE”), 694 F.3d 723 (6th Cir. 2012). We also AFFIRM IN PART and REVERSE IN
PART the district court’s judgment on the false-advertising claim.
*
The Honorable Solomon Oliver, Jr., Chief United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
-1-
No. 11-2090
Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Bhelliom Enters. Corp.
I.
In September 2004, LE began to test-market “5-hour ENERGY,” a two-ounce “energy shot.”
The Patent and Trademark Office denied LE’s application for trademark registration, citing the
descriptive nature of the product’s name. The next summer, after market testing proved favorable,
LE began marketing “5-hour ENERGY” in a variety of stores nationwide. See NVE, 694 F.3d at
727. The product succeeded and soon attracted a number of competitors.
In March of 2006, NVE, a New Jersey-based competitor, introduced a similar energy shot
named “6 Hour POWER.” LE sued NVE claiming, among other things, trademark infringement
(hereinafter the “NVE litigation”). The packaging of the competing products from the NVE
litigation appear below.
In December 2006, another competitor, Bhelliom, entered the market with an energy-pill
product named “Mr. Energy® 8-HR Maximum Strength ENERGY”—a combination of its registered
house mark, “Mr. Energy®,” and the pills’ claimed ability to provide energy for eight hours, the
-2-
No. 11-2090
Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Bhelliom Enters. Corp.
length of a normal workday. Bhelliom touted its product in press releases and on its website for
using a time-released formula. (R. 53, Exs. 6, 8.) During the summer of 2009, Bhelliom expanded
the “8-HR ENERGY” product line to include energy shots. LE sued Bhelliom for trademark
infringement and false advertising, targeting Bhelliom’s representations about the design and
effectiveness of its “8-HR ENERGY” products. Photos of the packaging at bar in this appeal
appear here.
The same district judge presided over LE’s suits against both NVE (“6 Hour POWER”) and
Bhelliom (“8-HR ENERGY”). The court granted summary judgment to both defendants on the
trademark infringement claims, ruling first in the NVE litigation in September 2010. In doing so,
the district court assessed LE’s claims using our traditional trademark-infringement factors:
(1) the strength of the plaintiff’s mark, (2) the relatedness of the goods or services
offered by the plaintiff and the defendant, (3) the similarity of the marks, (4) any
evidence of actual confusion, (5) the marketing channels used by the parties, (6) the
probable degree of purchaser care and sophistication, (7) the defendant’s intent in
selecting its mark, and (8) the likelihood of either party expanding its product line
using the marks.
-3-
No. 11-2090
Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Bhelliom Enters. Corp.
See, e.g., NVE, 694 F.3d at 731; Frisch’s Rests., Inc. v. Elby’s Big Boy of Steubenville, Inc., 670 F.2d
642, 648 (6th Cir. 1982). In both cases, the district court found that three factors supported
infringement (factors 2, 5, and 6) and four did not (factors 1, 3, 4, and 7), with the eighth factor
inapplicable. The court also granted Bhelliom summary judgment on the false-advertising claims,
concluding that LE failed to present evidence of damages.1 LE appealed the adverse judgments in
both cases.
The NVE summary judgment appeal reached a panel of this court after the district court
granted summary judgment in Bhelliom. In its precedential decision, that panel first addressed
NVE’s argument that LE’s “5-hour ENERGY” mark was too descriptive to receive protection under
the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), concluding that “5-hour ENERGY” is “suggestive” and thus
a protected mark. NVE, 694 F.3d at 730. On the merits of the trademark claim, the panel reversed
the district court’s non-infringement finding and remanded for a trial, explaining that the “evenly
balanced” factors—three for, and four against—precluded summary judgment. Id. at 732–33. The
panel rejected LE’s argument that NVE intentionally copied its product, but faulted the district court
for discounting LE’s evidence of consumer confusion. Id. at 732–33 (explaining that the summary
judgment standard required the district court to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of LE, the
non-moving party).
1
The district court granted summary judgment to LE on Bhelliom’s trademark counterclaims
related to its “Mr. Energy®” mark. Bhelliom does not appeal that decision.
-4-
No. 11-2090
Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Bhelliom Enters. Corp.
Noting the similarity of the two cases’ trademark claims, LE now argues here that NVE
requires us not only to reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment, but also to
grant summary judgment in its favor. LE also challenges the district court’s denial of its false-
advertising claims, arguing for a presumption of damages and injunctive relief.
II.
LE’s trademark and false-advertising claims arise under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1125(a). Accordingly, the district court exercised federal-question jurisdiction over
Living Essentials’s trademark claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Our appellate jurisdiction stems from
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We give fresh review to a grant of summary judgment, asking whether the
movant showed that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587–88 (1986).
As relevant here, section 43(a) of the Lanham Act protects trademarks by authorizing civil
actions against
Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for
goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any
combination thereof . . . which—
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the
. . . origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or
commercial activities by another person, or
-5-
No. 11-2090
Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Bhelliom Enters. Corp.
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature,
characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another
person’s goods . . . .
15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1). In order to prevail on either of these claims (trademark infringement, false
advertising), the plaintiff must show both a protectable trademark and the relevant Lanham Act
violation. NVE, 694 F.3d at 728.
III.
A. Effect of NVE on LE’s Trademark Infringement Claim
We begin by examining our treatment of LE’s similar trademark claim in the NVE appeal.
Faced with essentially the same split of trademark factors in NVE—three for, four against2—we
described the factors as “evenly balanced” and thus “counsel[ing] in favor of not granting summary
judgment.” Id. at 733; see also id. (“This factually intensive issue is a close call and could, on a fair
comparison of the evidence to date, be decided either way.”). Considering the similarity of the
products, the record evidence, and the district court’s rationale, one would expect that our judgment
in NVE should control here, requiring reversal of the district court’s non-infringement judgment.
2
The district court in this case found that factors 4 (actual confusion) and 7 (intentional
copying) favored neither party, consistent with our observation that such factors generally do not
favor or weigh against a finding of infringement. See Daddy’s Junky Music Stores, Inc. v. Big
Daddy’s Family Music Center, 109 F.3d 275, 286 (6th Cir. 1997) (explaining that a lack of intent
does not favor an alleged infringer by diminishing likelihood of confusion).
-6-
No. 11-2090
Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Bhelliom Enters. Corp.
Bhelliom’s briefing offers little resistance to NVE, suggesting only that it failed to address
whether the Lanham Act protected LE’s “5-hour ENERGY” product. Yet, as noted above, NVE
found the mark “suggestive” and thus entitled to trademark protection. NVE, 694 F.3d at 730. In
our view, little distinguishes this case from NVE, and we agree with LE that NVE requires reversal
of the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Bhelliom on this infringement claim.
B. LE’s Arguments for Summary Judgment on Trademark Infringement
That does not settle the matter, however, because LE now asks for summary judgment in its
favor. Specifically, it argues that additional factors support its view that Bhelliom’s “8-HR
ENERGY” pills and energy shots infringed its “5-hour ENERGY” mark. We cannot agree.
It is important to note that LE failed to move for summary judgment before the district court.
Although we may, in our discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2106, nonetheless direct an alternative
order of judgment, such an order is not appropriate in this case. Trs. of Mich. Laborers’ Health Care
Fund v. Gibbons, 209 F.3d 587, 596 n.5 (6th Cir. 2000). In reaching this conclusion we apply “the
general rule . . . that a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below,”
Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976), and are mindful “[t]his court is not compelled to hear,
nor should it hear, an issue not presented to the district court unless reaching that issue serves an
over-arching purpose beyond that of arriving at the correct result in an individual case,” Foster v.
Barilow, 6 F.3d 405, 408 (6th Cir. 1993). See also 10A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 2720 (3d ed. 2004) (“[A]n appellate court should not reverse a
-7-
No. 11-2090
Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Bhelliom Enters. Corp.
summary judgment and order judgment for the nonmoving party on the basis of an issue that the
movant had no opportunity to meet in the district court.”). Further, an alternative order of judgment
is generally not appropriate when the parties have not had a chance to address any material factual
issues before the district court. See Gibbons, 209 F.3d at 595; Fountain v. Filson, 335 U.S. 681, 683
(1949) (reversing an order of judgment “made on appeal on a new issue as to which the opposite
party had no opportunity to present a defense before the trial court”). With these considerations in
mind, we decline LE’s invitation to consider granting summary judgment in its favor.
LE’s argument for summary judgment, like the district court’s opinion below, fails to
distinguish Bhelliom’s energy shots from its pills. One would expect the likelihood-of-confusion
analysis to differ somewhat when comparing a liquid energy shot to a bottle of energy pills. LE’s
argument fails to account for these product differences.
Finally, were we to take up this forfeited argument, the additional factors relied on by LE do
not compel a finding of trademark infringement. LE now urges this court to consider the supporting
factors found by the district court, plus factors 1 (mark strength) and 3 (mark similarity) as
supporting a finding of infringement. It concedes that factors 4 (actual confusion) and 7 (intentional
copying) present a jury question.
To prevail on its claim, LE must show that Bhelliom’s “8-HR ENERGY” mark creates a
likelihood of confusion regarding the origin of the parties’ competing products. 15 U.S.C.
-8-
No. 11-2090
Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Bhelliom Enters. Corp.
§ 1125(a)(1)(A); NVE, 694 F.3d at 731. As noted above, we consider the following factors as
bearing on whether a plaintiff has shown a likelihood of confusion:
(1) the strength of the plaintiff’s mark, (2) the relatedness of the goods or services
offered by the plaintiff and the defendant, (3) the similarity of the marks, (4) any
evidence of actual confusion, (5) the marketing channels used by the parties, (6) the
probable degree of purchaser care and sophistication, (7) the defendant’s intent in
selecting its mark, and (8) the likelihood of either party expanding its product line
using the marks.
NVE, 694 F.3d at 731. “Whether a likelihood of confusion exists ‘is a mixed question of fact and
law,’ but the ultimate determination of ‘whether a given set of foundational facts establishes a
likelihood of confusion is a legal conclusion.’” Id. (quoting Therma–Scan, Inc. v. Thermoscan, Inc.,
295 F.3d 623, 630–31 (6th Cir. 2002)). Though we typically resolve trademark claims as a matter
of law, we recognize that certain cases present factual disputes or such evenly balanced factors that
the matter is properly resolved by the finder of fact. See, e.g., NVE, 694 F.3d at 733 (reversing
summary judgment in favor of defendant, finding factors in relative equipoise); Daddy’s Junky
Music Stores, Inc. v. Big Daddy’s Family Music Ctr., 109 F.3d 275, 284 (6th Cir. 1997) (same,
finding a genuine issue of fact regarding the product similarity).
This case, like NVE, “is a close call and could, on a fair comparison of the evidence to date,
be decided either way.” 694 F.3d at 733. LE acknowledges that certain factors present genuine
issues of material fact. Further, Bhelliom’s pill and energy-shot versions of “8-HR ENERGY”
-9-
No. 11-2090
Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Bhelliom Enters. Corp.
warrant separate consideration. As in NVE, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary
judgment and leave the remaining factual disputes for the factfinder.
IV.
LE’s false-advertising claim targets two representations Bhelliom made in press releases and
on its website about its “Mr. Energy® 8-HR Maximum Strength ENERGY” products: (1) that the
products use a time-released formula, consistent with a Harvard University study that revealed higher
sustained energy levels from the consumption of low doses of energy-boosting substances throughout
the day; and (2) that the products provide eight hours of energy. To present a viable false-advertising
claim under the Lanham Act, LE needs to show:
1) the defendant has made false or misleading statements of fact concerning his own
product or another’s; 2) the statement actually or tends to deceive a substantial
portion of the intended audience; 3) the statement is material in that it will likely
influence the deceived consumer’s purchasing decisions; 4) the advertisements
were introduced into interstate commerce; and 5) there is some causal link
between the challenged statements and harm to the plaintiff.
Am. Council of Certified Podiatric Physicians & Surgeons v. Am. Bd. of Podiatric Surgery, Inc.,
185 F.3d 606, 613 (6th Cir.1999).
The district court granted summary judgment to Bhelliom because LE failed to present
evidence of the last element: that the alleged falsities harmed LE. Though LE does not dispute this
- 10 -
No. 11-2090
Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Bhelliom Enters. Corp.
fact,3 it asserts that the absence of damages does not preclude their claim for two reasons: (1)
Bhelliom’s willful misrepresentations about its competitor products warrant a presumption of
damages, and (2) injunctive relief does not require damages. Only the second argument has merit,
but it warrants remand, not summary judgment.
A. Presumption of Damages for Willful Misrepresentations About Competitor Products
LE correctly notes that, for purposes of comparative advertising, we have recognized a
limited exception to the general rule that a false-advertising plaintiff must prove damages. In
Balance Dynamics Corp. v. Schmitt Industries, Inc., we adopted the reasoning of an Eighth Circuit
case that presumed damages in instances of willful deception. 204 F.3d 683, 694–95 (6th Cir. 2000)
(quoting Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 110 F.3d 1329, 1336 (8th Cir.1997)). We stressed,
however, that the presumption “extend[s] only to cases of comparative advertising where the
plaintiff’s product was specifically targeted,” explaining that “[o]therwise . . . ‘a plaintiff might enjoy
a windfall from a speculative award of damages by simply being a competitor in the same market.’”
Id. at 694 (quoting Porous Media, 110 F.3d at 1334–35). Recognizing this boundary, we found the
presumption overcome by evidence of no marketplace injury. Id. at 695.
3
For the first time in its reply brief, LE appears to rely on expert testimony speculating that
Bhelliom’s sales “no doubt were drawn from consumers who might have purchased 5-Hour Energy.”
(Appellant Reply Br. at 20.) The opening brief acknowledged that the district court rejected this
argument, but makes no attempt to use this evidence to support false-advertising damages. (See
Appellant Br. at 16, 20.) Because LE omitted this known argument from its opening brief, we deem
it forfeited. See, e.g., United States v. Madden, 403 F.3d 347, 351 n.1 (6th Cir. 2005).
- 11 -
No. 11-2090
Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Bhelliom Enters. Corp.
LE devotes considerable argument to the falsity of Bhelliom’s advertisements—an issue not
reached by the district court—but gives scant attention to the willfulness and targeted nature of these
alleged misrepresentations. For willfulness, LE offers only the testimony of an employee at Garden
State Nutritionals, the company that manufactured Bhelliom’s “8-HR ENERGY” products,
claiming that Bhelliom knew its products lacked a time-released formula. (Appellant Br. at 61
(citing R. 53, Ex. 4 at 25, 28–29).) This evidence relates to statements appearing in a specific press
release and on Bhelliom’s “8-HR ENERGY” website, http://www.8-hr.com, in which Bhelliom
asserts that its products use a time-released formula, similar to that recommended by a Harvard study
(hereinafter “time-released-formula ads”). (Appellant Br. at 11–12, 58–59; R. 53, Exs. 6 (linking
product to Harvard study), 7 (crediting “the revelations of [a] government study” for inspiring the
“design[] [of] a supplement that slowly releases its energy-boosting ingredients in small increments
throughout the day” ), 8 (proclaiming “time-released formula”).) Nevertheless, LE suggests that
another advertisement qualifies for the presumption of damages—an ad depicting the comparative
effectiveness of Bhelliom’s products vis-à-vis other energy shots (R. 53, Ex. 6)—without showing
that Bhelliom made a willful misrepresentation in that ad. Absent a showing of willfulness for
that ad, we confine our review for this aspect of LE’s false-advertising claim to the time-released-
formula ads.
On that front, LE presents colorable evidence that Bhelliom knowingly misstated its
products’ time-release capabilities, a point that Bhelliom does not dispute. But the presence of
willfulness, alone, does not warrant a presumption of damages; the alleged misrepresentation must
- 12 -
No. 11-2090
Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Bhelliom Enters. Corp.
target the plaintiff’s product. The Eighth Circuit explained this limitation in Porous Media: “In a
suit for money damages where a defendant misrepresented its own product but did not specifically
target a competing product, plaintiff may be only one of many competitors, and without proof of
causation and specific injury each competitor might receive a windfall unrelated to its own damage.”
110 F.3d at 1335–36; see also Harper House, Inc. v. Thomas Nelson, Inc., 889 F.2d 197, 209–10
(9th Cir. 1989) (rejecting a presumption of damages where the defendants deceptively advertised
their product, a binder-organizer, but plaintiff “presented no evidence of any injury causally related
to the defendants’ deception”). The Lanham Act’s general instruction that damages “shall
constitute compensation and not a penalty,” 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), likewise supports this view.
Porous Media, 110 F.3d at 1336; see also 5 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition
§ 27:31 (4th ed.), available at Westlaw MCCARTHY (“Since § 43(a) [of the Lanham Act] was
passed to protect consumers as well as competitors, the courts are not and should not be reluctant
to allow a commercial plaintiff to obtain an injunction even where the likelihood of provable impact
on the plaintiff may be subtle and slight. Congressional policy appears to encourage commercial
firms to act as the fabled ‘vicarious avenger’ of consumer rights. . . . An injunction, as opposed to
money damages, is no windfall to the commercial plaintiff. An injunction protects both consumers
and the commercial plaintiff from continuing acts of false advertising. Money damages, on the other
hand, primarily aid only the competitor, and he is required to satisfy a much higher standard of proof
as to injury in order to recover damages.” (footnotes omitted)).
- 13 -
No. 11-2090
Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Bhelliom Enters. Corp.
Porous Media, which allowed a presumption of damages, involved claims that the defendant
made misrepresentations about the plaintiff’s product. Id. at 1331 & n.2. So did Balance
Dynamics Corps, 204 F.3d at 686–87 (detailing the defendant’s consumer-alert letter suggesting
that the plaintiff’s product was subject to environmental regulations and eventually would be
banned, with consumers absorbing the costs of regulatory compliance), 694–95 (finding that the
defendant’s letter “specifically targeted [plaintiff’s product], which was the only product of its kind
on the market”). LE makes no such claim here. At best, it notes that one of the time-released-
formula ads acknowledges its “5-hour ENERGY” product as a competitor. (Appellant Br. at 61
(citing R. 53).) Sure enough, that ad acknowledges “5-hour ENERGY” and another (coincidentally,
“6 Hour POWER”) as competitors in the energy supplement market, but it does not
misrepresent their formulas or effectiveness. Rather, the press-release states that the competitors
proclaim energy boosts that match their products’ respective five- and six-hour names and calls the
competitors “successful.” Indeed, the press release offers only one direct point of comparison
between “8-HR ENERGY” and the competition: whereas “the taste of the drink and the
inconvenience of the packaging make [energy shots] a less than ideal choice for many individuals,”
Bhelliom’s “easy-to-swallow capsule avoids the harsh taste of energy drinks.” (Id.)4
4
Ironically, Bhelliom introduced its own energy shot less than three years after offering its
product in pill form, despite its initial concerns about the energy drink medium. The packaging for
“8-HR ENERGY” products claims they are “#1 in Taste.”
- 14 -
No. 11-2090
Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Bhelliom Enters. Corp.
LE does not object to these generic statements of a better-tasting, more convenient product,
nor could it. See, e.g., Interactive Prods. Corp. v. a2z Mobile Office Solutions, Inc., 326 F.3d 687,
699–700 (6th Cir. 2003) (explaining that vague, opinion-based claims about a product constitute
non-actionable “puffery” under the Lanham Act). LE also does not seek damage-control costs
arising from this ad. See Balance Dynamics Corp., 204 F.3d at 692–93. Thus, at bottom, LE
objects to the fact that Bhelliom oversold its own product, not that Bhelliom misrepresented or
caused confusion regarding LE’s product. From our review of the presumed-damages cases, LE
needed to show that Bhelliom’s willful misrepresentations targeted its products; it did not. We
affirm the district court’s denial of damages for the false-advertising claim.
B. Injunctive Relief
To the extent that LE seeks injunctive relief, however, it stands on firmer ground. The
district court stated its position on this issue in two brief sentences, finding this option likewise
foreclosed by LE’s failure to show harm. (R. 86, Op. & Order at 13 (explaining that, despite a lower
standard of proof for injunctive relief, LE still failed to “demonstrate a likelihood that [Bhelliom’s]
advertising has caused or will cause harm to [LE]”).) Our cases do not require distinct evidence of
harm as a prerequisite for injunctive relief. See, e.g., LidoChem, Inc. v. Stoller Enters., Inc., 500 F.
App’x 373, 380 (6th Cir. 2012); Balance Dynamics Corp., 204 F.3d at 693–94; Am. Council, 185
F.3d at 618. Indeed, in American Council, we held that
- 15 -
No. 11-2090
Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Bhelliom Enters. Corp.
injunctive relief may be obtained by showing only that the defendant’s
representations about its product have a tendency to deceive consumers while
recovery of damages requires proof of actual consumer deception. This lower
standard [for injunctive relief] has arisen because when an injunction is sought,
courts may protect the consumer without fear of bestowing an undeserved windfall
on the plaintiff. Although plaintiff need not present consumer surveys or testimony
demonstrating actual deception, it must present evidence of some sort demonstrating
that consumers were misled.
185 F.3d at 618 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Precedent therefore requires us to
reverse the district court’s contrary judgment.
The questions remain whether, and to what degree, the district court should have granted
the injunctive relief sought by LE. To repeat, LE challenges two primary representations appearing
in Bhelliom’s ads: (1) that “8-HR ENERGY” products use a time-released-formula , and (2) that they
provide energy for eight hours. The latter claim has many manifestations, ranging from the name
of the product to ads guaranteeing eight hours of energy and a rudimentary bar graph depicting
energy drinks’ comparative effectiveness. (See R. 53, Exs. 7, 9.) LE argues that all of these
representations were literally false. Bhelliom only defends the eight-hour-energy representations,
citing product testimonials and scientific evidence concerning the effectiveness of caffeine, one of
the primary ingredients in its products. LE improperly suggests that we should construe facts in its
favor in determining falsity, despite the fact that it now asks for summary judgment. Even so, it does
not address the key factor identified in American Council: the misrepresentation’s tendency to
deceive consumers. Am. Council, 185 F.3d at 618.
- 16 -
No. 11-2090
Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Bhelliom Enters. Corp.
We may overlook that factor with regard to the time-released-formula ads because
American Council recognized a legal presumption of consumer deception for a competitor’s literally
false advertisements. 185 F.3d at 614; see also LidoChem, Inc., 500 F. App’x at 380. During oral
argument, Bhelliom conceded these false statements, but noted that the statements only concerned
their “8-HR ENERGY” pills. They also assure us they have discontinued these ads. That may be
so, but this development does not appear in the record. To the extent these false advertisements
remain at issue, we remand for the district court to fashion appropriate injunctive relief.
But we cannot presume deception with regard to the myriad eight-hour-energy claims, the
falsity of which Bhelliom genuinely disputes. In the absence of a literally false statement, American
Council instructs that a plaintiff may obtain injunctive relief if the misleading representation
“tend[s] to deceive a substantial portion of the intended audience.” 185 F.3d at 618. “Although
plaintiff need not present consumer surveys or testimony demonstrating actual deception, it must
present evidence of some sort demonstrating that consumers were misled.” Id.
Because the district court did not consider these factors in resolving LE’s false-advertising
claims, we think it prudent to allow the district court, in the first instance, to resolve whether any of
Bhelliom’s advertisements proclaiming eight hours of energy contained literal falsities or
misleading representations, and which (if any) tend to deceive a substantial portion of the intended
audience.
- 17 -
No. 11-2090
Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Bhelliom Enters. Corp.
V.
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s judgment on the trademark-
infringement claim. We also AFFIRM IN PART and REVERSE IN PART the district court’s
judgment on the false-advertising claim, AFFIRMING the denial of damages and REVERSING the
denial of injunctive relief with instructions. We REMAND for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
- 18 -