Tag Heuer, S.A. v. Meierotto's Jewelry, L.P.
4:12-cv-01201
W.D. Mo.Jan 16, 2013Background
- Plaintiff LVMH Swiss Manufacturers, S.A. alleges Defendant Meierotto’s Jewelery, L.P. sold watches after losing authorized-retailer status.
- Defendant allegedly represents itself as an authorized retailer and that watches bear Plaintiff’s warranty.
- Defendant distributes watches with warranty cards and defaced/altered packaging.
- Warranties at issue are argued under the MMWA; Plaintiff contends defects in warranty terms mislead consumers.
- Plaintiff asserts four claims: false warranty representation, false association, Lanham Act infringement, and unfair competition.
- Court denies Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, accepting Plaintiff’s warranty allegations and related inferences for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warranty misrepresentation supports Lanham Act liability | Meierotto’s misrepresentation about the warranty misleads buyers | Warranty terms are legal conclusions not plead as facts | Count I survives to plead warranty misrepresentation |
| Whether Defendant falsely claimed authorized-dealer status | Distorting status harms Plaintiff’s goodwill | No damages shown from genuine watches | Count II survives; damages adequacy discussed but alleged injury suffisient |
| Whether altered packaging can support Lanham Act infringement | Altered packaging may affect control of quality and cause confusion | Genuine goods typically not infringing when genuine | Count III viable; issues of fact for later stage |
| Whether Counts IV and related claims survive given packaging/claims | Unfair competition alleged from misrepresentations and packaging | Similar to other counts; should be dismissed | Count IV viable; tied to other counts |
Key Cases Cited
- American Italian Pasta Co. v. New World Pasta Co., 371 F.3d 387 (8th Cir. 2004) (Lanham Act elements and likelihood of confusion guidance)
- Graham Webb Int’l Ltd. P’ship v. Emporium Drug Mart, Inc., 916 F. Supp. 909 (E.D. Ark. 1995) (Authorized-distributor misrepresentation not tolerated)
- Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Rauh Rubber Inc., 943 F. Supp. 1117 (D. Minn. 1996) (Sale of genuine goods can raise Lanham Act issues when quality control is harmed)
- Zino Davidoff SA v. CVS Corp., 571 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2009) (Altered packaging can impact likelihood of consumer confusion)
- Davidoff & CIE, S.A. v. PLD Int’l Corp., 263 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2001) (Protection against misrepresentation of warranties and attribution)