Page:International Code Council v. UpCodes (2021).pdf/14

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

interstate commerce, and that the plaintiff was injured.” Weight Watchers, 403 F. Supp. 3d at 369 (quoting Merck, 760 F.3d at. 255).

New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350 respectively prohibit deceptive business practices and false advertising. Weight Watchers, 403 F. Supp. 3d at 381 (quoting Denenberg v. Rosen, 897 N.Y.S.2d 391 (App. Div. 2010)). The elements of each are substantially similar to false advertising under the Lanham Act because “[t]o successfully assert a claim under either section, ‘a plaintiff must allege that a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice.’” Orlander v. Staples, Inc., 802 F.3d 289, 300 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Koch v. Acker, Merrall & Condit Co., 967 N.E.2d 675 (N.Y. 2012)).

1. Representations Regarding Amendment Integration

Defendants argue that the Complaint does not adequately allege that UpCodes’s statements regarding Integrated Amendments are false. This is because, according to Defendants, while there may be “about two dozen” errors among the “tens of thousands” of Integrated Amendments on the UpCodes website, these minimal errors do not establish that

14