§481A-3 Deceptive trade practices. (a) A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of the person's business, vocation, or occupation, the person:

(1) Passes off goods or services as those of another;

(2) Causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services;

(3) Causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, another;

(4) Uses deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services;

(5) Represents that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection that the person does not have;

(6) Represents that goods are original or new if they are deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used, or secondhand;

(7) Represents that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another;

(8) Disparages the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading representation of fact;

(9) Advertises goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised;

(10) Advertises goods or services with intent not to supply reasonably expectable public demand, unless the advertisement discloses a limitation of quantity;

(11) Makes false or misleading statements of fact concerning the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions; or

(12) Engages in any other conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.

(b) In order to prevail in an action under this chapter, a complainant need not prove competition between the parties or actual confusion or misunderstanding.

(c) This section does not affect unfair trade practices otherwise actionable at common law or under other statutes of this State. [L 1969, c 187, pt of §1; gen ch 1985]

Cross References

Cybersquatting, see §§481B-21 to 25.

Case Notes

Where complaints alleged that credit card providers violated this section and §§480-2 and 480-13.5 and unjust enrichment, the claims were not preempted by the National Bank Act. Also, because the complaints unambiguously disclaimed class status, the actions could not be removed under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. 761 F.3d 1027 (2014).

No "likelihood of confusion" found. 399 F. Supp. 604; 5 H. App. 194, 683 P.2d 1220.

Plaintiff's likelihood of confusion allegations may support both §§480-2 unfair methods of competition and 481A [sic] deceptive acts or practices claims. 945 F. Supp. 1344.

Plaintiffs' unfair or deceptive acts and practices claim, in violation of this section, based on the recording of an allegedly false assignment failed where plaintiffs failed to establish that the assignment was false; moreover, contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the express terms of the mortgage and the assignment in question suggest that one named defendant only transferred to other named defendant its "'right to foreclose and sell the [p]roperty'". 823 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (2011).

Court found that plaintiffs', timeshare owners, alleged injuries arose from the implementation of defendants', timeshare resort operators, points-based program in 2010, which was allegedly a discrete act and not a continuing pattern and course of conduct. Therefore, court concluded that the continuing violation doctrine did not apply and that portions of plaintiffs' claims arising from their ability to use their floating interests in a weeks-based program were time-barred because plaintiffs filed their Complaint more than four years after the implementation of the points-based program. 165 F. Supp. 3d 955 (2016).