Maffick runs multiple Facebook pages. Due to Maffick’s potential ties to the Russian authorities, Facebook labeled the pages “Russia state-controlled media.” Maffick sued Facebook. In Sept. 2020, the court denied Maffick’s TRO request. Now, the court docket has dismissed the Lanham Act declare and denied supplemental jurisdiction over the state regulation claims. Maffick might amend its Lanham Act grievance, pursue the state regulation claims in state court docket, or drop the litigation. It ought to do the latter.
The Lanham Act false affiliation declare isn’t troublesome. The court docket says it might’t inform what enterprise Maffick is in or how Maffick’s content material promotes the sale of any items. “Nor does the complaint plausibly allege that Facebook’s Russian state-controlled media advisory label was commercial conduct that diverted sales away from Maffick, allowed Facebook to profit from Maffick’s business goodwill, or otherwise amounted to the type of unfair conduct prohibited by Section 43(a).” The label doesn’t signify the origin of Facebook’s items, both.
The Lanham Act false promoting declare can be a loser. Among different issues, the label isn’t Facebook’s advert or industrial promotion, nor did Maffick show how the label brought on it a industrial harm. There’s some dialog of standing pursuant to Lexmark, when you’re into that type of factor.
Reminder: John Ulin and Amy Nashon Stalling of Troy Gould are representing Maffick. #MAGA/#MRGA.
Case quotation: Maffick LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 2021 WL 1893074 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2021)