The protection of intellectual property is not limited to patents, trademarks and copyrights. There is a substantial body of federal and state law directed to unfair trade practices and unfair competition, including laws that deal with false advertising. Probably the best known and most widely litigated of these is Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, which prohibits "commercial advertising or promotion [that] misrepresents the nature, characteristics [or] qualities" of the advertiser's goods or services. Comparable state laws generally prohibit false statements in marketing materials about the technical properties of a competitor's product, generally known as commercial disparagement. There are also many additional state laws that prohibit other activities considered by the states to be unfair competition, false advertising, or improper practices that are harmful to consumers. This important body of federal and state laws tends to be involved with matters concerning patents, trademarks and copyrights, and it is not uncommon for IP disputes to include, either as the central allegation or as one of several counts, claims based on the Lanham Act and related state laws.
 
Buchanan's unfair trade practices and unfair competition litigation team has handled a wide range of matters involving claims made under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and state laws on unfair competition, unfair trade practices and false advertising. The team has successfully defended clients when they were sued under these laws. It has also used these laws, particularly the Lanham Act, to protect our clients against unfair competition in various forms, including false product comparisons and scientific claims made without proper testing and verification. In each case, Buchanan's litigators seek to obtain the best possible outcome and achieve our client's business objectives in the most cost-efficient way available.

Representative Experience

• KV Pharmaceutical Co. v. KVK - Tech, Inc., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. [Represented pharmaceutical manufacturer in an action against another pharmaceutical manufacturer for trade name infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and state law, which resulted in a settlement on favorable terms.]
• Adams Manufacturing Corp. v. Marc Glassman, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. [Represented plaintiff in an action for violation of Lanham Act and patent infringement, which resulted in a settlement on favorable terms.]
• Adams Manufacturing Corp. v. Interdesign, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. [Represented plaintiff in action for violation of Lanham Act and patent infringement, which resulted in a settlement on favorable terms.]
• Chemic Laboratories, Inc., et al. v. Pharma Pac, LLC, et al., United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. [Represented plaintiffs in an action against a contract pharmaceutical manufacturer and a generic drug company for misappropriation of trade secrets and Lanham Act violations concerning a new pharmaceutical product.]
• Schering-Plough Healthcare Products, Inc. v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. [By a motion based on FDA regulations, won dismissal with prejudice of Lanham Act claim brought by brand name drug company against companies selling generic equivalents.]
• Bush Brothers & Co., Inc. v. Nash Finch Co., United States District Court for the District of Delaware. [Represented Bush Brothers in action alleging Lanham Act violations for use of labels confusingly similar to Bush Brother's famous trade dress for Bush's beans, which resulted in a settlement on favorable terms, including the defendant's redesign of its labels.]
• Deere & Co. v. MTD Products, Inc., United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. [Represented Deere & Co. against a manufacturer of  outdoor power equipment in a matter protecting Deere's famous green and yellow trade dress under the Lanham Act.]
• Deere & Co. v. Jaden Kanga Group Pty Ltd., United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. [Represented Deere & Co. against a manufacturer of compact loaders in a matter protecting Deere's famous green and yellow trade dress under the Lanham Act.]
•  Woody Allen v. American Apparel, Inc., United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. [Represented defendant in an action for alleged violation of the Lanham Act and state law, which resulted in a settlement on favorable terms.]