Vericool World, LLC v. Igloo Products Corp.

── Vericool World, LLC v. Igloo Products Corp. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 06, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VERICOOL WORLD, LLC, No. 24-192 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 4:22-cv-02440- HSG v. OPINION IGLOO PRODUCTS CORP., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted September 19, 2025 San Francisco, California Filed May 6, 2026 Before: David F. Hamilton, Ryan D. Nelson, and Patrick J. Bumatay, Circuit Judges.* Opinion by Judge R. Nelson; Dissent by Judge Bumatay * The Honorable David F. Hamilton, United States Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, sitting by designation. 2 VERICOOL WORLD, LLC V. IGLOO PRODUCTS CORP. SUMMARY** Lanham Act The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Igloo Products Corp. in a false advertising action brought under the Lanham Act by Vericool World, LLC, a cooler manufacturer. Vericool alleged that Igloo wrongfully took credit as the first to market a biodegradable cooler. The panel held that even though Vericool World, LLC, was founded years after the statements that allegedly injured its predecessor Vericool, Inc., it had standing to sue as an assignee of Vericool, Inc. The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), creates a cause of action against a defendant who “misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin” of a good. The panel held that the “characteristic” must be an observable aspect of the tangible product, rather than the ideas or communications that goods embody or contain. Accordingly, when a plaintiff brings a false advertising claim based purely on statements that cause confusion about which product was the first on the market, that plaintiff does not have a valid claim under § 1125(a)(1)(B). The panel held that Vericool’s claim was not cognizable because it concerned the origin of an idea embodied in its coolers, rather than the characteristics of the product itself. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  VERICOOL WORLD, LLC V. IGLOO PRODUCTS CORP. 3 The panel concluded that Vericool waived its assertion, made for the first time on appeal, that Igloo’s “first to the market” claim caused confusion about whether Vericool’s cooler was biodegradable. Dissenting, Judge Bumatay wrote that Vericool alleged a material misrepresentation under the Lanham Act because the “nature,” “characteristics,” or “qualities” of a thing includes its intangible or non-observable nature, characteristics, or qualities. So when Vericool manufactured what it considered to be the first biodegradable cooler and then sued Igloo Products for falsely advertising that Igloo created the original biodegradable cooler, Vericool alleged a material misrepresentation under the Lanham Act. Because Vericool adequately alleged a material misrepresentation under the Lanham Act based on its “first of its kind” assertion, the panel should have remanded to the district court to determine whether Vericool meets the other elements of a false advertising claim. COUNSEL Andrew Grimm (argued), Digital Justice Foundation, Omaha, Nebraska; Gregory W. Keenan, Digital Justice Foundation, Floral Park, New York; James Banker, Digital Justice Foundation, Las Vegas, Nevada; Felton T. Newell Jr., New