M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. and Ass v. Jay Strabala

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a Lanham Act claim applied where advertising falsely designated the services of an architect as emanating from the individual rather than his firm
• contemplating that Rule 9(b) applies to a false designation of origin claim under Section 43(a)(1)(A) where the allegations charge a fraudulent course of conduct
• noting that, where a Lanham Act claim charges the defendant with “a form of fraud,” a court should “expect [the] complaint to allege with particularity the nature of the grievance” under Rule 9(b)
• reversing a dismissal for failure to state a claim regarding the origin of architectural designs
• remarking the plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim “charges [the defendant] with a form of fraud, so we would expect [the] complaint to allege with particularity the nature of the grievance”
• “[The complaint] charges [the defendant] with a form of fraud, so we would expect its complaint to allege with particularity the nature of the grievance—what [the defendant] said and why it is false.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).