Platt Electrical Supply, Inc. v. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 15, 200805-15672California5,073 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

Platt filed its complaint in 2003. According to its complaint,1 Platt was “engaged in the distribution, marketing, and whole- sale supply of electrical products intended for consumer pur- chase and use.” UL “is a not-for-profit corporation . . . principally engaged in the business of formulating safety stan- dards for new consumer products, testing such products against its standards, determining whether the product so tested conforms to the standards, and, if the product does comply, authorizing the product’s manufacturer to imprint UL’s distinctive mark on the complying product.”

Platt asserted that Cadet Manufacturing Company (Cadet) “manufactured . . . in-wall space heaters under the names ‘Cadet’ and ‘Encore.’ ” UL evaluated Cadet’s heaters, and determined that the heaters complied with UL’s safety stan- dards. UL “authorized Cadet to include the UL mark on the labels of the Heaters.” UL’s “process is known as ‘listing’, and a product that has qualified to bear the UL mark is said to be a ‘listed product.’ ” 1 The factual background is based on Platt’s complaint, because, in reviewing a motion to dismiss, “[w]e accept as true all well-pleaded facts in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.