- the ads of the opposing party were false or misleading;
- the ads decieved, or had the capacity to deceive consumers;
- the deception had a material effect on purchasing decisions;
- the misrepresented product or service affects interstate commerce; and
- the movant has been-or is likely to be injured as a result of the false advertising.
ALPO Petfoods, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 913 F.2d 958, 964 (D.C.Cit. 1990).
Have you been injured by false advertising?
Contact us today or book an appointment online.