They are drawn from the complaint and taken as true, withall inferences drawn in the plaintiffs’ favor. See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002).A. False AdvertisingThe Lanham Act prohibits any material “false or misleading representation of fact” in connection with commercial advertising or promotion. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B).
The Court of Appeals says those prior admissions may be useful in attacking plaintiff's credibility later in the case, but they cannot be relevant in determining if the amended complaint states a claim. The Circuit cites two cases, Dangler v. Off-Track Betting, 193 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 1999), and Chambers v. Time Warner, 282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002).
In addition, on a facial challenge a court may consider certain additional documents, but only those in limited categories—for instance, materials incorporated into the complaint by reference, documents relied on by the complaint, certain public records, and matters subject to judicial notice. See, e.g., Philips v. Pitt Cty. Mem’l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009) (recognizing a court “may property take judicial notice of matters of public record”); Doss v. Clearwater Title Co., 551 F.3d 635, 640 (7th Cir. 2008) (recognizing a court make take judicial notice of certain materials); Am. Chiropractic Ass’n, Inc. v. Trigon Healthcare Inc., 367 F.3d 212, 234 (4th Cir. 2004) (recognizing a court may generally consider documents “integral and explicitly relied on in the complaint”); Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152-53 (2d Cir. 2002) (recognizing a court may consider documents attached to, referenced by, or integral to a complaint).4 See, e.g., Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014).
DISCUSSIONThe facts relevant to each of the plaintiffs’ claims are in corporated in to the discussion of that claim.They are drawn from the complaint an d taken as true, with all inferences drawn in the plaintiffs’ favor.See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc. , 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002).A. False AdvertisingThe Lanham Act prohibits any material “false or misleading representation of fact” in connectionwith commercialadvertisingorpromotion.15 U.S.C.§ 1125(a)(1)(B).If a statement does not qualify as false advertising under the Lanham Act, it is not actionable underthe General Business Law, either.See ONY, Inc. v. Cornerstone Therapeutics, Inc. , 720 F.3d 490, 498 (2d Cir.2013) (“There is . . . no reason to believe that the New York Court of Appeals would interpret state law to provide for more expansive liability than does the Lanham Act.”
6 We may consider this document because the pleading “‘relies heavily upon its terms and effect,’ which renders the document ‘integral’ to the complaint.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 153 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Int’l Audiotext Network, Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 62 F.3d 69, 72 (2d Cir. 1995)).7 Apotex’s reliance on Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v. Mut. Pharm. Co., 762 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014) is misplaced.