Imagine Medispa, LLC v. Transformations, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24287

Background

Imagine Medispa, LLC and Transformations, Inc. are WV-based competitors in medical weight loss and skin care.
Plaintiffs allege Transformations and its officers published false ads claiming lower prices and aired misleading campaigns across interstate commerce.
Plaintiffs allege fraud via online false profiles on Facebook and a fictitious Camaro Craigslist listing to deter customers and harass Rubio and Imagine.
Plaintiffs claim Defendants lured Imagine employees and misrepresented that Imagine used unlicensed doctors and had to change its name.
Plaintiffs filed suit on October 26, 2013, asserting Lanham Act false advertising (Count I), tortious interference (Count II), defamation (Count III), and invasion of privacy (Count IV).
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on December 20, 2013; plaintiffs later added new factual allegations but the court did not consider them for the motion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Lanham Act false advertising viability	Rubio: statements were false and in interstate ads, harming goodwill and sales.	Transformations: statements are puffery and nonactionable; some claims not pleaded with interstate disclosure.	Count I false advertising dismissed; false endorsement claim survives.
Lanham Act false endorsement viability	Rubio alleges fictitious Facebook profile misled clients into believing endorsement by Rubio.	Transformations contests connection to false endorsement; lack of explicit linkage in complaint.	Count I false endorsement survives; plausible misrepresentation from fictitious profile.
Tortious interference with contract/business relationship	Imagine alleges interference via poaching employees and harming client relations.	Insufficient factual link between poaching attempts and claimed damages; time bar defense raised.	Interference with employees dismissed without prejudice; statements to clients survives.
Defamation	Galbraith allegedly stated Rubio had trouble with authorities and Camaro misrepresentation harmed Rubio.	Some statements are not defamatory or time-barred; Craigslist statement questioned.	Defamation claim dismissed for Craigslist-based allegations; others survive.
Invasion of privacy	Facebook profile created in Rubio’s name intrudes seclusion and false light.	Some privacy theories lack basis in public disclosure or true facts.	intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation, and false light claims survive; unreasonable publicity dismissed.

Key Cases Cited

PBM Prods., LLC v. Mead Johnson & Co., 639 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 2011) (Lanham Act false advertising elements as set forth by Fourth Circuit)
Castrol, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., 987 F.2d 939 (3d Cir. 1993) (puffery definition in advertising claims)
Am. Italian Pasta Co. v. New World Pasta Co., 371 F.3d 387 (8th Cir. 2004) (puffery and general claims of superiority)
Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv. Inc., 911 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1990) (lowest price puffery principle in advertising)
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 569 F. Supp. 2d 796 (E.D. Wis. 2008) (purchaser reliance on broad price claims; puffery analysis)
Gordon & Breach Science Publishers S.A. v. Am. Inst. of Physics, 905 F. Supp. 169 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (puffery and broad marketing statements)
AvePoint, Inc. v. Power Tools, Inc., 981 F. Supp. 2d 496 (W.D. Va. 2013) (false endorsement and identity-use theories)
Maremont v. Susan Fredman Design Grp., Ltd., 772 F. Supp. 2d 967 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (false endorsement and deceptive profiles theories)
Advanced Res. Int'l, Inc. v. Tri-Star Petroleum Co., 4 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1993) (recognition of injury theories related to false advertising)
Garrison v. Herbert J. Thomas Mem’l Hosp. Ass’n, 438 S.E.2d 6 (W. Va. 1993) (tortious interference with patient relationships)
Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc., 320 S.E.2d 70 (W. Va. 1983) (privacy and defamation interplay; invasion framework)