different sponsored links appearing on a page that a consumer might believe each one is the true “producer” or “origin” of the Styrotrim product. As such, Plaintiff fails to properly plead a false designation of origin claim. (b) False Advertising Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant’s AdWords program constitutes false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act as codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B). Maintenance of a false advertising claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B) requires, “(1) a commercial injury based upon a misrepresentation about a product; and (2) that the injury is ‘competitive,’ or harmful to the plaintiffs ability to compete with the defendant.” Jack Russell Terrier Network of Northern California v. American Kennel Club, Inc., 407 F.3d 1027, 1037 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Here, Plaintiff and Defendant are not direct
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 while under a false association claim parties need not be direct competitors under a false advertising claim they do 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 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