[that] do not provide integrated code books.” (Complaint ¶ 63.) Because ICC does not allege that the statement as qualified is false, Defendants insist that ICC has not established falsity.
Because Plaintiff does not respond to this argument, the Court considers it conceded. See, e.g., Simmons v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 19 Civ. 6986, 2020 WL 2904847, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2020) (“Plaintiff has waived reliance on these other provisions, as she did not respond to Amtrak’s arguments that they are inapplicable.”); Hongxia Wang v. Enlander, No. 17 Civ. 4932, 2018 WL 1276854, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2018) (finding that “the theory was abandoned because Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s argument”); Kao v. British Airways, PLC, No. 17 Civ. 0232, 2018 WL 501609, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2018) (“Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose Defendants’ specific argument in a motion to dismiss is deemed waiver of that issue.”).
Thus, to the extent the false advertising claims are premised on UpCodes’s representations that it is the only source of certain integrated amendments, they are dismissed.
B. Unfair Competition
“The elements necessary to prevail on [a] cause[] of action for … unfair competition under New York common law mirror the Lanham Act claims.” ESPN, Inc. v. Quiksilver, Inc.,
22
