The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York made an interesting statement by granting a stay in furtherance of NAD’s jurisdiction in the case of Cellco Partnership (d/b/a Verizon Wireless) v. AT&T Mobility LLC. The case was initiated by AT&T filing an NAD challenge against Verizon regarding Verizon’s “most reliable network” claim. In response, Verizon filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York asking for declaratory judgment under the Lanham Act that the claims were not misleading. Following Verizon’s filing, NAD closed its investigation of the matter in accordance with its procedures that require it to close any case that is the subject of a pending litigation.
AT&T requested a stay in the litigation, arguing that NAD should be able to re-open the case and continue its investigation in furtherance of judicial economy. The court did not write an opinion, but “So Ordered” the stay, allowing NAD to re-open its investigation and continue in its evaluation of the claims.
The Southern District granted a similar request in the case of Russian Std. Vodka, Inc. v. Allied Domecq Spirits & Wine USA, Inc. in 2007. In that case, the court stayed a false advertising litigation to permit the NAD process to continue. These cases underscore the importance the courts are placing on NAD’s role in the investigation and evaluation of advertising claims, as well as the level of regard the courts have for NAD’s level of expertise.
