M. Arthur Gensler & Asso., Inc. v. Strabala

Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing plaintiff-architectural firm’s action alleging that defendant-former employee violated section 43(a) of Lanham Act by representing on his new architectural firm’s web site that he had designed five large architectural projects for which plaintiff was architect of record. Basis for Dist. Ct.’s ruling, i.e., defendant’s failure to assert that he built or sold said projects precludes cause of action under section 43(a), was not supported by language of section 43(a). Moreover, plaintiff’s claim that defendant’s representations were likely to deceive potential clients about origin of projects’ designs was covered conduct under section 43(a). However, plaintiff may have difficult time establishing viable claim, where complaint failed to indicate why defendant’s statements were false, especially if defendant played significant role in design of said projects.