Illinois Tool Works Inc. vs. BG Products, Inc.

Filing 69

ORDER denying 5 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction; adopting 64 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 7/13/2017. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:17-cv-420-T-30AAS

BG PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER
THIS CAUSE came on for consideration upon the Report and Recommendation
submitted by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone (Dkt. #64) and Plaintiff’s
Objections (Dkt. #65) filed thereto.
After careful consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge, the Objections, and in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the
Court is of the opinion that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation should be
adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects.
Plaintiff’s Objections predominantly focus on the legal standard; Plaintiff contends
the Magistrate Judge improperly applied the applicable standard. The Court disagrees that
the Magistrate Judge applied an incorrect standard. However, the Court sustains the
Objections to the extent that the Court agrees that the record reflected that Defendant’s
tests did not adequately support the following statement: “The dispersant in Wynn’s Automatic

Transmission Cleaner is present in such a low concentration that, after dilution inside a
transmission, minimal or no cleaning would be done.” (Dkt. #64 at 18). Nonetheless, even

if this statement is “false,” the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that, at this juncture,
Plaintiff has not established the other elements of a false advertising claim, i.e., that the
challenged statement, even if false, materially deceived potential consumers; or that
Plaintiff has been, or is likely to be, injured as a result of the false advertising. The only
record evidence of alleged deception was that one of Plaintiff’s customers received
Defendant’s brochure. But that same customer continued to purchase Plaintiff’s products,
rather than Defendant’s, so any alleged deception seems implausible at this stage.
The Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff has not
established irreparable harm at this stage in the litigation.
In sum, although the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny
Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction request, the Court emphasizes that a more developed
record may establish Plaintiff’s false advertising claims.
ACCORDINGLY, it is therefore, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #64) of the Magistrate Judge is

adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects, and is made a part of this order for all
purposes, including appellate review.

2

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. #5) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 13th day of July, 2017.

Copies Furnished To:
Counsel/Parties of Record

3