Warren Technology, Inc. v. UL LLC, 962 F.3d 1324

Background:

Warren Technology (manufacturer) sued Tutco (competitor) and UL LLC (an OSHA-recognized NRTL) alleging false certification and advertising under the Lanham Act, common-law unfair competition, and Florida's FDUTPA.
UL certifies products as compliant with the UL 1995 standard; Warren and Tutco both made unitary electric (UE) heaters for Carrier HVAC systems and were UL-certified under UL 1995.
UL 1995 (Clause 30.16) requires an automatically-resetting temperature (ART) control and generally requires a non-self-resetting thermal cutoff (NSRT) backup, except where Clause 30.18 applies if the ART circuit never cycles under “intended operating conditions.”
Warren’s theory: “intended operating conditions” includes restricted-airflow scenarios, so Tutco’s UL-certified heaters that lack NSRTs are noncompliant; UL’s certification and Tutco’s use of the UL mark are therefore misrepresentations that caused Warren lost sales to Carrier.
The district court dismissed, holding Warren failed to plead an actionable misrepresentation and lacked authority to substitute its interpretation for UL’s; Warren appealed.
During the appeal, UL’s Fifth Edition of UL 1995 (requiring NSRTs for all UE heaters) took effect, rendering Warren’s request for injunctive/declaratory relief moot.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether UL’s certification and Tutco’s marketing of heaters as UL 1995–compliant were actionable misrepresentations under the Lanham Act, FDUTPA, and common law	Warren: UL misinterpreted Clause 30.16; Tutco’s heaters lack required NSRTs, so certification/advertising is false and deceptive	UL/Tutco: Certification reflects UL’s good-faith interpretation as NRTL; plaintiff’s contrary interpretation is conclusory and not a factual misrepresentation	Court: No actionable misrepresentation pleaded; a disputed interpretation by UL (an NRTL) is not necessarily a falsity and Warren’s allegations were insufficient
Whether a competitor may challenge a NRTL’s interpretation/certification in a false-advertising/unfair-competition claim	Warren: Competitor may sue when certification is false and causes marketplace harm	UL/Tutco: Competitor lacks authority to reinterpret and police UL’s mark; cancellation remedies exist under trademark law	Court: Competitor can sue in appropriate circumstances, but Warren failed to plead facts (e.g., bad-faith testing, inconsistent application, lack of independence) that would make UL’s conduct actionable
Whether equitable relief (declaratory/injunctive) remains available given a subsequent standards change	Warren: Relief still warranted / rehearing denied below	Defendants: Fifth Edition requires NSRTs, so injunctive relief moot	Court: Injunctive/declaratory claims moot because Fifth Edition took effect

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory legal allegations insufficient to survive dismissal)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead facts plausibly raising entitlement to relief)
City of Miami v. Citigroup Inc., 801 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2015) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 299 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2002) (Lanham Act requires false or misleading statements)
Osmose, Inc. v. Viance, LLC, 612 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2010) (statements of opinion generally not actionable)
Brand Mktg. Grp. v. Intertek Testing Servs., 801 F.3d 347 (3d Cir. 2015) (NRTL can be liable for negligent misrepresentation where testing was recklessly performed)
Idaho Potato Comm’n v. M&M Produce Farm & Sales, 335 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2003) (remand appropriate where registrant’s certification practices suggest lack of independence or discriminatory treatment)
Jackson v. BellSouth Telecomms., 372 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2004) (courts need not accept unwarranted deductions or legal conclusions as facts)
Adler v. Duval Cty. Sch. Bd., 112 F.3d 1475 (11th Cir. 1997) (equitable claims become moot when threat of future harm dissipates)