A federal judge in Pennsylvania granted summary judgment to a topical pain-relief spray company on some of its counterclaims alleging abuse of process by a competitor and the competitor’s counsel.
The plaintiff, MaxRelief USA, filed counterclaims alleging Painaway Australia and its former counsel, Much Shelist, intentionally interfered with current and prospective business relations. The plaintiff also alleged abuse of process in connection with the initial lawsuit, in which Painaway sued MaxRelief USA under the Lanham Act for false advertising, specifically with regard to a dispute as to which seller was actually “Australia’s #1,” according to the court’s opinion.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]