From 43(b)log: Defendant sells product to the large auto makers. It represented its product to be the ‘same’, presumably in terms of quality, to that of plaintiff, even though its product was cheaper. Plaintiff alleges that this is false. Defendant established that purchasers conducted their own evaluations, and made their purchasing decisions independent of defendant’s representations. Court holds for defendant. 43(b)log points out that the Court’s holding can be characterized as either being based on ‘puffery’ or immateriality. Stating that one’s goods are the same as a competitor, in the absense of a specific objective claim, is mere puffing up. Alternately, seller’s claims are immaterial when buyer conducts its own analysis.
Permacel v. Soundwich, (W.D. Mo).
