Hollenbeck

MEMORANDUM *

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

A. Disparagement and Defamation Claims

Hollenbeck’s false statement to Kim regarding the inability of Krystal Enterprises (“Krystal”) to service its buses could not have caused Krystal’s damages arising out of Kim’s refusal to accept delivery of three buses. 1 The injunction prohibited Krystal from delivering the infringing buses to Kim, so it would not have mattered that Krystal could not service buses that it was not allowed to sell in the first place. 2 Thus, the district court did not err in granting Metrotrans Corporation’s (“Metrotrans”) motion for summary judgment on Krystal's disparagement and defamation claims.

*727 B. Lanham Act Claims

Krystal failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Metro-trans’ “Tag Axle” and “Have You Heard the Rumor” advertisements contained false claims of product superiority. 4 We have distinguished (1) an advertisement that explicitly or implicitly asserts that a claim of product superiority is based on studies, which may be proven false by showing that the studies are unreliable, from (2) an advertisement that made no such assertion, which must…