Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC. v. Tricam Industries, Inc.

Background

Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC and Tricam Industries, Inc. manufacture competing multi-position ladders. Little Giant claimed that Tricam violated the Lanham Act, a federal false-advertising law, and the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act by representing that Tricam’s MPX ladders complied with ANSI A14.2, a voluntary industry safety standard for portable metal ladders.

The challenged representations appeared on MPX ladder labels, on Home Depot product pages, and on Tricam’s GorillaLadders.com product pages. They stated, among other things, that the ladders complied with applicable ANSI standards or were ANSI certified. Little Giant’s theory focused on ANSI A14.2 § 6.7.5, which addresses the step surface of trapezoidal ladder rungs. Little Giant argued that the standard required a flat surface at least one inch deep across the entire distance between the ladder’s side rails, including the crimped portions of Tricam’s rungs.

The case was tried to the court without an advisory jury. The court stated that Little Giant had to prove a false statement, deception or a tendency to deceive a substantial part of the audience, materiality, interstate commerce, and actual or likely injury.

Interpretation of ANSI A14.2 § 6.7.5

The court found that the better interpretation of § 6.7.5 did not require a one-inch flat surface across the entire width of a trapezoidal rung. Instead, the provision required a step surface of sufficient width to provide the reasonable safety contemplated by ANSI A14.2.

The court relied on the text of § 6.7.5, the standard’s other provisions, its purpose, the standard’s development history, and industry practices. It noted that the standard did not expressly specify the width of the required step surface and did not use the separate term “inside clear width” in § 6.7.5. The court also considered evidence that crimped-and-riveted rungs had been on the market since at least 2002, that manufacturers of such ladders had been represented on the relevant ANSI committee, and that no one had previously raised the compliance issue before the lawsuit.

The court found that Tricam’s MPX ladders complied with § 6.7.5 under this interpretation. It also found that Tricam had conducted internal and independent third-party testing, and that Intertek’s testing had determined that the final MPX designs satisfied § 6.7.5.

False-advertising claims

The court found that Tricam’s statements communicated an objective fact—that its MPX ladders complied with ANSI A14.2—not an opinion. The court also found that Tricam retained control over the ANSI compliance information displayed on Home Depot’s website because Tricam entered the information and Home Depot relied on vendors to ensure its accuracy.

Because the MPX ladders complied with § 6.7.5 as the court interpreted it, the court held that Tricam’s ANSI-compliance statements were not literally false. The court stated that, even if that finding were wrong, the evidence would show that the statements were not material because Little Giant had not shown that the ANSI representations were likely to influence consumers’ purchasing decisions. The court found Tricam’s ANSI-specific consumer survey more informative than Little Giant’s survey about general industry-safety standards. It also relied on evidence that few surveyed consumers recalled seeing an ANSI statement and that witnesses had not identified consumers who relied on ANSI certification when buying ladders.

The court concluded that Little Giant had not proven a Lanham Act violation and therefore was not entitled to disgorgement or a finding of willfulness. Because the Minnesota statute mirrors the Lanham Act for these claims, the court entered judgment for Tricam on both the federal and state claims, with prejudice and on the merits.

Other rulings

The court ruled on several motions in limine, which are requests to restrict evidence or argument at trial:

- Tricam’s motion to exclude speculative evidence concerning materiality was denied in part and granted in part. It was denied as to testimony from Moss and Skubic that the court admitted and considered; it was otherwise granted. - Tricam’s motion to exclude argument about compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the relationship between that agency’s requirements and ANSI was denied in part and granted in part. It was denied as to evidence admitted and considered on those subjects; it was otherwise granted. - Tricam’s motion to limit Art Wing’s testimony was denied as moot. - Tricam’s motion to exclude argument and evidence concerning copying was denied. - Little Giant’s motion to exclude Tricam’s unclean-hands defense was denied as moot. - Little Giant’s motion to exclude testimony from Knox and Van Bree was denied in part and granted in part. It was denied to the extent their testimony was considered or relied on; it was otherwise granted. - Little Giant’s motion to exclude evidence of third-party ladders was denied. - Little Giant’s motion to exclude evidence of product recalls was denied as moot.