![]() The court rejected GOLO's theory in its entirety, holding that the supposedly uncomplimentary reviews of the GOLO diet could not be subject to claims under the Lanham Act because they were not commercial speech. Based on that theory, GOLO brought claims for false advertising and trademark infringement under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. Specifically, GOLO alleged that the reviews of the GOLO diet were, in fact, attempts to divert internet traffic from GOLO's website to the defendants' websites, where potential consumers would then be encouraged to purchase products from advertisers or other businesses with which the defendants had commercial relationships. GOLO asserted that the defendants' websites were really offering "fake reviews." GOLO brought suit against HighYa, LLC and BrightReviews, LLC, two companies that own and operate consumer-review websites that reviewed the GOLO diet in a manner not to GOLO's liking. The plaintiff in the case, GOLO, LLC, is the owner and marketer of a popular diet program sold exclusively online. Then, just last week, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint, holding that the proposed amendments "would be futile," as they would not provide a basis for concluding that the reviews constituted commercial speech. ![]() ![]() On that basis, the court dismissed the Lanham Act claims asserted by the plaintiff. A federal district court in Philadelphia ruled last month that product reviews featured on two consumer-review websites were not commercial speech in the case of GOLO, LLC v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |