under 15 U.S.C.A. § 45. Cf. Bristol-Myers, 786 F.Supp at 215-216 (showing of intentional copying insufficient for a section 349 violation where there was no showing of substantially different ingredients or any risk to public health in the sense contemplated by the statute). Although plaintiff argues that defendant’s product is unsafe, it has not, as detailed above, made a sufficiently strong showing on this point. To the extent that plaintiffs claims of violation of Gen.Bus.L. § 349 or § 350 rest on allegations of false advertising, plaintiff has failed to show a likelihood of success for the same reason that it has failed to show a likelihood of success on its Lanham Act false advertising claim. Cf. Towers Financial Corp. v. Dun & Bradstreet, 803 F.Supp. 820, 823 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (<HOLDING>). In its fifth cause of action, Kompan alleges
holding that defendants statement that it owned the rights to a trademark did not give rise to a false advertising claim under the lanham act holding that both lanham act false advertising claim and a false advertising claim made under section 349 or section 350 require a showing that the advertisement was false or misleading holding that while under a false association claim parties need not be direct competitors under a false advertising claim they do holding in a false advertising case under the lanham act that a proposed disclaimer would not suffice to cure the misleadingness of an advertising claim holding that false arrest and false imprisonment claim were not duplicative