From today's decision in Sig Sauer, Inc. v. Bagnell by Judge Victor Bolden (D. Conn.):
Jeffrey Bagnell, an attorney, commissioned High Impact, a graphics company, to create an animation purporting to show how a P320 pistol could misfire absent a trigger pull ("uncommanded discharge" or the "Animation"). He later posted that Animation to YouTube and published it on his firm's website. Part of Mr. Bagnell's business involves representing plaintiffs who claim that they have been injured by uncommanded discharges from P320s.
Sig Sauer … alleg[es] that the Animation constitutes false advertising by inaccurately portraying the firearm's internal components and safety features…. Jeffrey S. Bagnell … is hereby ORDERED to refrain permanently from using this version of the Animation for advertising purposes, whether on the Bagnell Firm website or in any other form on any other platform, and whether on the Internet or in any other media….
The court concludes that the animation constitutes "commercial speech" for First Amendment purposes and for federal false advertising law (Lanham Act) purposes:
