In the context of this case, the panel concluded that when a company in the computer security business describes a competitor’s software as “malicious” and a “threat” to a customer’s computer, that is more a statement of objective fact than a non-actionable opinion. The district court primarily based the dismissal on its conclusion that Malwarebytes’s designations of Enigma’s products were “non-actionable statements of opinion.” The panel disagreed with that assessment. 12(b)(6), the district court concluded that all of Enigma’s claims were insufficient as a matter of law. § 1125(a)(1)(B), and tort claims under New York law. Enigma’s operative complaint alleged a false advertising claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. for designating its products as “malicious,” “threats,” and “potentially unwanted programs” and remanded for further proceedings. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.Ĭourt Description: Lanham Act The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment dismissing a lawsuit brought by Enigma Software Group USA LLC, a computer security software provider, against its competitor Malwarebytes, Inc. You already receive new opinion summaries from Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals. Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals? The panel agreed with the district court regarding the dismissal of the claim for tortious interference with contractual relations, however, and affirmed the dismissal of that claim. ![]() ![]() As this action was initially filed in New York, the law of that state properly applies.īecause the panel held that the Lanham Act and NYGBL Section 349 claims should not have been dismissed, the panel concluded that the tortious interference with business relations claim should similarly not have been dismissed. The panel disagreed with the district court and concluded that Malwarebytes is subject to personal jurisdiction in New York. It is potentially actionable under the Lanham Act, provided Enigma plausibly alleges the other elements of a false advertising claim. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The district court granted the motion, concluding that all of Enigma’s claims were insufficient as a matter of law. Malwarebytes moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Section 1125(a)(1)(B), and tort claims under New York law. ![]() (“Malwarebytes”), for designating its products as “malicious,” “threats,” and “potentially unwanted programs” (“PUPs”). Plaintiff Enigma Software Group USA LLC (“Enigma”), a computer security software provider, sued a competitor, Defendant-Appellee Malwarebytes, Inc.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |