James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse, which houses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in downtown Philadelphia, PA, on April 3, 2021. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM
A federal judge in Pennsylvania granted summary judgment to a topical pain-relief spray company on some of its counterclaims alleging abuse of process by a competitor and the competitor’s counsel.
The plaintiff, MaxRelief USA, filed counterclaims alleging Painaway Australia and its former counsel, Much Shelist, intentionally interfered with current and prospective business relations. The plaintiff also alleged abuse of process in connection with the initial lawsuit, in which Painaway sued MaxRelief USA under the Lanham Act for false advertising, specifically with regard to a dispute as to which seller was actually “Australia’s #1,” according to the court’s opinion.
