{"id":488,"date":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=488"},"modified":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-15T12:00:00","slug":"chownow-owner-com-lanham-act-false-advertising-trademark","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=488","title":{"rendered":"ChowNow v. Owner.com \u2014 N.D. Cal. lets restaurant tech competitor\u2019s Lanham Act false advertising and trademark suit largely proceed"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
ChowNow, Inc. v. Owner.com<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Northern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-15<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
5:25-cv-07315<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Lanham Act \u00a7 1125(a) false advertising; Lanham Act \u00a7 1114 trademark infringement; California UCL \u00a7 17200; California FAL \u00a7 17500; trade libel; comparative advertising; intentional interference; restaurant technology<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

ChowNow, Inc. operates a digital platform serving over 22,000 restaurant partners with tools to attract, engage, and retain customers, and owns the registered trademark CHOWNOW. ChowNow sued Owner.com, Inc. \u2014 a direct competitor in the restaurant-technology space \u2014 alleging that Owner.com\u2019s comparative advertising contained false and misleading statements about ChowNow on Owner.com\u2019s website, the RestaurantGPT website, and a YouTube channel.<\/p>\n

ChowNow asserted seven claims: (1) false advertising and trademark infringement under Lanham Act \u00a7 1125(a); (2) trademark infringement under Lanham Act \u00a7 1114; (3) California UCL \u00a7 17200; (4) California FAL \u00a7 17500; (5) trade libel; (6) intentional interference with contractual relations; and (7) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. ChowNow alleged at least hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses, sought punitive damages and attorney\u2019s fees, and requested an accounting of Owner.com\u2019s profits.<\/p>\n

Owner.com moved to dismiss for lack of standing under Rule 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi denied the standing motion and granted in part and denied in part the failure-to-state-a-claim motion, with leave to amend.<\/p>\n

On standing, the court held ChowNow alleged a concrete injury in fact under Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife<\/em>: lost sales and revenue, lost economic prospects, harm to its CHOWNOW trademark, and reputational damage. The injury was fairly traceable to Owner.com\u2019s alleged false advertising and trademark conduct, and would be redressable through damages, injunctive relief, and disgorgement.<\/p>\n

On the Lanham Act \u00a7 1125(a) false-advertising claim, the court found ChowNow plausibly alleged that Owner.com made false or misleading statements of fact in commercial advertising about ChowNow, that the statements were material to consumer decisions, and that they caused or were likely to cause competitive injury. Specific examples of allegedly false comparative-advertising statements on Owner.com\u2019s websites and YouTube channel were sufficient at the pleading stage.<\/p>\n

On Lanham Act \u00a7 1114 trademark infringement, the court found ChowNow plausibly alleged use of its registered mark in a way likely to cause confusion. The California UCL and FAL claims, which often track Lanham Act claims, also survived. The trade libel and tortious interference theories survived in part where ChowNow specifically tied the conduct to identifiable contractual relationships and prospective economic advantage; some theories were dismissed with leave to amend for lack of specificity.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n