context: We are left then with the sworn statements of the one building manager, Sam Lamaj, and the Plumlee employee Richard Webb. A review of the relevant cases indicates that the conduct which has been deemed intentionally deceptive has been supported by evidence which is not provided here, and itself appeared more egregious.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 960 F.2d 299, 299
citation_a.parenthetical: unwilling to extend the presumption of consumer confusion where evidence of deceptive intent in a false advertising claim was indirect and controverted
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., PPX Enterprises, 818 F.2d at 273 (allowing recovery of damages despite lack evidence of actual customer confusion where the products were “patently fraudulent, and the advertising accompanying those products was the vehicle employed to perpetrate the fraud”); cf. Johnson & Johnson*Merck, 960 F.2d at 299 (unwilling to extend the presumption of consumer confusion where evidence of deceptive intent in a false advertising claim was indirect and controverted).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 818 F.2d 273, 273
citation_b.parenthetical: allowing recovery of damages despite lack evidence of actual customer confusion where the products were "patently fraudulent, and the advertising accompanying those products was the vehicle employed to perpetrate the fraud"
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., PPX Enterprises, 818 F.2d at 273 (allowing recovery of damages despite lack evidence of actual customer confusion where the products were “patently fraudulent, and the advertising accompanying those products was the vehicle employed to perpetrate the fraud”); cf. Johnson & Johnson*Merck, 960 F.2d at 299 (unwilling to extend the presumption of consumer confusion where evidence of deceptive intent in a false advertising claim was indirect and controverted).