July 27, 2014

False Advertising Complaint Charges that Competitor Used Doctored Photograph

In a complaint filed in the Atlanta Division of the Northern District of Georgia on January 4, 2013, Wika Instrument Corporation (“WIKA”) seeks lost profits, treble damages, and to enjoin allegedly false statements about the flammability and safety of its market-leading XSEL® pressure gauges by a competitor, Ashcroft, Inc. (“Ashcroft”).   

WIKA assets that Ashcroft is seeking to seize market share and damage WIKA’s reputation by touting unreliable and manipulated flammability tests and doctored photographs, which are therefore literally false.  

The complaint identifies WIKA as a global manufacturer and supplier of pressure and temperature measurement instruments for highly combustible materials throughout the United States and globally, primarily to the refinery industry.  WIKA’s market share in the refinery industry, according to the complaint, has increased over the past five years due to its high-quality products and superior ratings for safety and flammability.  WIKA describes a gauge as being comprised of a protective case with a lens protecting the dial and pointer, a Bourdon tube pressure sensing element, a “movement to convert motion” from the sensing element to the pointer, and a connector to attach the gauge to the monitored device or system.  A WIKA XSEL® Process Gauge is pictured below:


A WIKA YouTube production describes the features of the gauge at:

Flammability and fire safety characteristics such as temperature resistance, thermal stability, flame resistance, burn time, and ability to rapidly self-extinguish, are significant customer considerations because of the serious risk of fires in the refinery industry.  

The complaint assets that Ashcroft has been losing business to WIKA for years due to WIKA’s superior quality, safety, flammability characteristics, and price.  The competing Ashcroft Type 1279 Duragauge pressure gauge is shown below:

According to WIKA, Ashcroft advertisements falsely state “Thermoplastics are also more likely to burn than thermosets. … When thermoplastics burn, the material will melt, creating a pool of burning liquid, or even worse, spattering burning molten plastic onto nearby surfaces” and further state that testing has shown WIKA gauges “burn intensely when contacted with the flame,” while “the Ashcroft 1279 did not burn and case integrity was not compromised.”  WIKA referred to a 30 minute 550ºF test reported in an Ashcroft brochure as literally false:  In Paragraph 30 of the complaint, WIKA included the following “after” photo as depicted in the brochures:

The WIKA complaint alleges this photo is “doctored.”  Much of the WIKA allegations are based on information and belief that at least one of the following actions was taken to skew the test results:  (1) the pictures were doctored; (2) flammable portions of the Ashcroft gauge were removed before testing; (3) the Ashcroft gauge was cleaned after the test but before the photo; or (4) the pictured Ashcroft gauge was not the gauge used in the test.

WIKA asserts a false advertising claim under Lanham Act § 43(a)(1)(B) [15 U.S.C. §1125(a)], seeking injunctions pursuant to §1116 , attorney fees, profits, costs, prejudgment interest, corrective advertising costs, monetary damages enhanced damages, and attorneys’ fees under §1117(a), and destruction of advertisements under §1118.  WIKA further asserts Georgia’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practice Act (O.C.G.A. § 10-1-372), Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (C.G.S.A. § 42-110a et seq.), and tortious interference with current and prospective business relationships.

The elements of a prima facie case of false advertising under the Lanham Act are recited in our November 13, 2012 blog post, which covers a complaint filed by WIKA against a different competitor.

The case is Wika Instrument I, LP, f/k/a Wika Instrument Corp. v. Ashcroft, Ins., No. 1:13-cv-43-WSD, filed 01/04/13 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, and has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr.

Copyright © 2014 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Kirk Watkins, Womble Carlyle Law Firm, Business Litigation Attorney

Kirk manages and tries complex business litigation, patent and international arbitration disputes. He believes thorough preparation and strategic theme development result in successful trials or settlements.    


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.