Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc. v. Fendi Usa, Inc., and Fendi Stores, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “businesses harmed by isolated disparaging statements do not have redress under the Lanham Act”
• holding that \twenty-seven oral statements regarding plaintiff's products in a marketplace of thousands of customers\ did not \satisfy the requirement that representations be disseminated widely\
• holding that \businesses harmed by isolated disparaging statements do not have redress under the Lanham Act\
• holding that plaintiff must prove “that the statements caused special damages” for disparagement of goods claims but that “general damages to the reputation of the business are presumed” for claims of slander per se
• finding that twenty-seven oral statements in a marketplace with thousands of customers were not sufficiently disseminated to qualify as commercial advertising or promotion
• explaining that unlike a claim of “slander per se for which special damages need not be itemized,” a product disparagement claim requires “itemized damages”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).