District Judge William H. Pauley III

 

Read Full- Text Decision

In the UPS parties’ contract breach and trademark infringement suit, the Hagans asserted a claim for false advertising under §43 of the Lanham Act. The Hagans claimed that when customers learned from them that ground service was guaranteed, they refused to do business with any UPS store, causing the demise of the Hagans’ franchises. The court granted the UPS Parties and Manhattan Franchisees dismissal of the Hagans’ Lanham Act false advertising claim for lack of standing. The admissibility of testimony by Robert Hagan about the reasons why customers left his stores was inextricably bound with evidence by investigator Puccini, the bulk of which was deemed inadmissible, and thus rendered Robert Hagan’s testimony inadmissible. The record was devoid of specific evidence that the Manhattan Franchisees’ over-dimensioning scheme caused direct harm to the Hagans’ franchises. Nor could the Hagans point to any evidence that they lost business because any of the defendant UPS franchisees misrepresented the ground guarantee. Because the Hagans submitted no evidence connecting defendants’ alleged false advertising with injury to the Hagans’ franchises, defendants were entitled to summary judgment.