Cashmere & Camel Hair Manufacturers Institute v. Saks Fifth Avenue

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, although the plaintiff was entitled to a presumption of consumer deception, remand was required for further proceedings on causation
• finding that the same conduct supports a Lanham Act claim and a state law claim of unfair competition
• listing \tendency to deceive a substantial segment of [an advertisement's] audience\ as another element of a successful false-advertising claim
• labeling a statement as material because it was related to an inherent quality or characteristic of the product
• finding litigant satisfied its burden of demonstrating consumer deception based on the presumption of confusion arising from literal falsity “and defendants’ failure to present evidence to rebut it”
• finding causal link based on literal falsity and the “common sense” inference that “sale of cashmere-blend coats which overstated their cashmere content could cause a loss of sales of cashmere-blend coats which correctly state their cashmere content”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).