This article explains the legal defense for Spectre in its lawsuit against Gerber Products and Williams v. Spectre Performance Air Filters and Intake Systems. We will also explain how Spectre relies on these case-law precedents. We will explore how Spectre has successfully defended itself against this lawsuit. We will also discuss the potential remedies for CARB violations and misleading advertising.
Spectre’s reliance on Williams v. Gerber Products Co.
In a lawsuit filed in California, K&N Engineering, Inc. successfully defended itself against claims that its air filters and intake systems were approved by the California Air Resource Board. However, Spectre failed to offer evidence that it received approval from the CARB. Ultimately, the jury decided in favor of K&N. This case highlights the importance of carefully evaluating marketing and advertising claims in a product lawsuit.
Although Spectre claims that the air filter and intake system improve horsepower, the court has noted that the company’s claims were untrue. It used a special test filter and graphs that did not accurately depict the product’s efficiency. In addition, it claimed that its “Dyno Gains” graph was misleading and not indicative of actual air filter effectiveness. In its FACC, Spectre failed to supplement the ROG Responses, which violates Rule 26(e) of the Federal Trade Commission.
Although Spectre challenges K&N’s proffered fact, the Court finds no admissible evidence to contradict the company’s proffered fact. Spectre misrepresents the testimony of Steven Williams in his deposition. During the deposition, Williams claimed that K&N had changed its testing protocols.
K&N argues that the CARB disclaimers in the K&N products reflected the CARB’s mandated label. Although K&N does not dispute the fact that K&N’s products were required to include the disclaimers, the fact of CARB compliance on K&N’s packaging is highly probative. Despite the conflict between the K&N and Gerber claims, this fact argues for summary judgment for Spectre.
Spectre Performance Air Filters and Injection Systems’ reliance on Williams v. Gerber Products Co. depends on how the claims in the K&N Horsepower Advertisements are made. To prevail, the plaintiff must prove that the claim in the ad is false. The plaintiff must also show that the tests supporting the challenged claim are unpersuasive.
Spectre’s reliance on Sartor
K&N Engineering, Inc., a manufacturer of air filters and intake systems, won a lawsuit against Spectre Performance for intentionally making false claims about their products. The company’s air filters and intake systems are similar to cotton gauze high-flow air filters that K&N developed. The company falsely claims that its products are approved by the California Air Resource Board.
K&N maintains that it was required by law to display a disclaimer regarding CARB on its products. K&N also argues that it did not supplement its interrogatory responses regarding the CARB disclaimer. In this regard, K&N argues that the omission of the legally mandated disclaimer constitutes an unlawful business practice, and violates the Lanham Act. The lawsuit contends that the plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses are relevant to this fact.
The Court has determined that Spectre’s FACC does not include any evidence that the company did not follow the test protocol. K&N’s deposition responses are the same as those of the plaintiff, and there is no evidence that Spectre’s FACC contradicts this statement. Moreover, the plaintiffs offer no evidence that Spectre did not comply with the FRE 407 requirements, and there is no proof that K&N violated the law.
The Court also holds that Spectre’s Lanham Act claim is not independent of K&N’s claims. While Spectre has argued that its Horsepower Advertisements violated the law, K&N contends that they are merely a derivative of Spectre’s Lanham Act claim. Spectre’s Lanham Act claim requires it to prove that K&N’s Horsepower Advertisements distorted consumers’ perception of their products.
Spectre’s SGI does not dispute that K&N’s products increase horsepower. They do. K&N’s dyno tests show that their products improve horsepower. Spectre’s only evidence challenging K&N’s claims is an admission that the dyno results differ. The Court rules that Spectre’s advertising is not relevant and overrules the objections that Spectre raised.