THERMOCARBON, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DICING TECHNOLOGY, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Thermocarbon appeals a trial court's dismissal of a Lanham Act false advertising claim based on the court's erroneous conclusion that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. The Florida appellate court reverses, holding that state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over Lanham Act claims.
State courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts to enforce the Lanham Act. The trial court's order dismissing Count II based on lack of jurisdiction was therefore improper and is reversed.
[1] State courts have concurrent jurisdiction over claims brought under the Lanham Trade-Mark Act, 15 U.S.C. …
[2] A cause of action for false and deceptive advertising under the Lanham Trade-Mark Act, 15 U.S.C. …
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Both the federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to enforce § 43(a) [15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) ] since the act imposes liability in any 'civil action.'”
Establishes the core holding that state and federal courts share concurrent jurisdiction over Lanham Act claims
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThermocarbon filed a complaint that included Count II alleging false and deceptive advertising in violation of the Lanham Trade-Mark Act, 15 U.S.C. § …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Exclusive Original Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
[*30] GOSHORN, Judge.
Thermocarbon, Inc. appeals an order dismissing with prejudice Count II of its complaint which alleged a cause of action for false and deceptive advertising proscribed by the Lanham Trade-Mark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).1 The basis for the trial court’s dismissal was its finding that the federal court has exclusive original jurisdiction. Because we find the state court has concurrent jurisdiction, we reverse the order and remand to the trial court with instructions to reinstate Count II. See Flagship Real Estate Corp. v. Flagship Banks, Inc., 374 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
See 2 J. McCarthy Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 27:6B (2d ed. 1984) (“Both the federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to enforce § 43(a) [15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) ] since the act imposes liability in any ‘civil action.’ ”).
See also Entex Industries, Inc. v. Warner Communications, 487 F.Supp. 46 (C.D.Cal.1980) (although federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) suits, federal court will abstain from hearing suit for trademark infringement and unfair competition where similar action was brought first in state court); Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Emenee Industries, Inc., 14 N.Y.2d 498, 248 N.Y.S.2d 223, 197 N.E. 2d 620 (1964) (state court held complaint stated a cause of action under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and affirmed order denying the motion to dismiss).
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
W. SHARP and PETERSON, JJ„ concur. . Section 1125(a), 15 U.S.C. provides:
Any person who shall ... use in connection with any goods ... or any containers for goods, a false ... description or representation, including words or other symbols tending falsely to describe or represent the same, and shall cause such goods to ... enter into commerce, and any person who shall, with knowledge of the falsity of such designation of origin or description or representation cause or procure the same to be transported or used in commerce or deliver the same to any carrier to be transported or used, shall be liable to a civil action by any person doing business in the locality falsely indicated as that of origin or in the region in which said locality is situated, or by any person who believes that he is or is likely to be damaged by the use of any such false description or representation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Flagship Real Est. Corp. v. Flagship Banks, Inc., 374 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)