I Love Omni LLC v. Omnitrition International Inc, 3:16-cv-02410

Plaintiffs I Love Omni, LLC (ILO) and Heidi Whitehair sued Omnitrition alleging breach of contract, business disparagement, tortious interference with business relationships, and Lanham Act violations; plaintiffs later dropped declaratory and TTLA claims.
District court previously dismissed several claims but allowed amendment; plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint asserting breach, business disparagement, tortious interference (including prospective relations), and Lanham Act claims.
Omnitrition moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the disparagement, tortious interference, and Lanham Act claims; the motion was briefed and ripe.
For business disparagement, Whitehair identified allegedly disparaging statements and recipients but did not plead falsity or particularized special damages (lost sales, quantified losses).
For tortious interference (prospective), plaintiffs alleged a conference call in which Omnitrition’s founder disparaged Whitehair and asserted a high probability of future relationships; plaintiffs failed to plead reasonable probability, ascertainable damages, proximate cause, or that defendant’s conduct was independently tortious.
For the Lanham Act claim, plaintiffs asserted Omnitrition made false commercial statements (distributor count; Drops contain HCG; weight-loss efficacy) but failed to plead economic or reputational injury affecting their competitive position or that consumers withheld trade.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Business disparagement (Whitehair)	Omnitrition made and published disparaging statements causing lost income and business relationships	Statements are not pleaded as false; damages are not particularized	Dismissed for failure to plead falsity and special damages
Tortious interference with business relationships (prospective and existing)	Omnitrition disparaged Whitehair on a call, creating a high probability she would have entered relationships with call participants; harmed ability to develop/maintain relationships	Plaintiffs fail to identify specific prospective relationships, fail to plead reasonable probability, ascertainable damages, proximate cause, or an independent tort	Dismissed for failure to plead reasonable probability, proximate cause, damages, and independently tortious conduct; existing-contract interference also dismissed for lack of pleaded contract
Lanham Act (false advertising/false designation)	Omnitrition misrepresented distributor counts, ingredient HCG in Omni Drops, and Drops’ weight-loss efficacy; these misrepresentations caused lost sales/confusion	Plaintiffs lack Lanham Act standing because they do not plead economic or reputational injury that impaired their ability to compete or show consumers withheld trade	Dismissed for lack of standing and failure to plead proximate commercial injury

In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2007) (pleading standard under Twombly applied)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (two-pronged plausibility analysis for Rule 12(b)(6))
Forbes Inc. v. Granada Biosciences, Inc., 124 S.W.3d 167 (Tex. 2003) (elements of business disparagement)
Johnson v. Hospital Corporation of America, 95 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996) (special damages requirement: direct pecuniary loss)
Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (2014) (Lanham Act standing requires commercial injury proximately caused by deception)
Coinmach Corp. v. Aspenwood Apartment Corp., 417 S.W.3d 909 (Tex. 2013) (elements for tortious interference with prospective relations)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sturges, 52 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. 2001) (independently tortious conduct requirement)