UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

EURO-PRO OPERATING LLC, Plaintiff, v. TTI FLOOR CARE NORTH AMERICA d/b/a HOOVER, Defendant.

12-10566 Civil Action No. _________________
VERIFIED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT FOR FALSE ADVERTISING AND UNFAIR COMPETITION Plaintiff Euro-Pro Operating LLC (“Euro-Pro”), by and through its undersigned attorneys, for its Verified Complaint against Defendant TTI Floor Care North America d/b/a Hoover (“Hoover”), states as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Euro-Pro manufactures, markets, and distributes steam cleaning and vacuum

products for household use. Hoover is also a manufacturer, marketer, and distributer of household steam cleaning and vacuum products. Hoover recently launched advertising campaigns containing a number of false and misleading claims for two new steam cleaning and vacuum products, using literally false and misleading claims and deceptive depictions about the performance, efficacy and material attributes of its own products and competing Euro-Pro products. 2. Hoover’s intentionally deceptive advertising threatens Euro-Pro with lost sales,

loss of goodwill, lost market share and irreparable harm in the marketplace. Hoover’s false and

misleading claims are causing or are likely to cause consumer confusion about the performance, efficacy and other material attributes of Hoover’s and Euro-Pro’s steam and vacuum products. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Euro-Pro is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of

the State of Delaware, with its principal office located at 180 Wells Avenue, Suite 200, Newton, MA 02459. For decades Euro-Pro has developed and manufactured consumer steam cleaning and vacuum products. Euro-Pro makes a variety of products, including but not limited to, steam mops, handheld steam cleaners, vacuum cleaners, small kitchen appliances, and irons. 4. TTI Floor Care North America (“TTI”), is a supplier of home improvement and

construction tools. TTI offers for sale a full line of power equipment products, floor care appliances, laser, and electronic products. TTI’s portfolio of global brands includes, among others, Hoover®, Royal®, Dirt Devil®, Regina® and Vax®. Hoover is formerly a subsidiary of Whirlpool, and offers a comprehensive line of products for general and special-purpose vacuuming, including full-size uprights and canisters, deep cleaners, and hard-floor cleaners, including steam cleaners. Hoover promotes its business as including the design, development, manufacture, marketing, sourcing and sale of floor-care appliances; the servicing, remanufacturing, repairing and refurbishing of such appliances; and providing related replacement parts and accessories. Hoover has manufacturing operations in North Canton, Ohio, El Paso, Texas, and Juarez, Mexico, with administrative offices in Newton, Iowa, and is incorporated in Ohio. Hoover markets, distributes and sells its products across the United States, including within this judicial district.

2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has jurisdiction over each of the claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

and supplemental jurisdiction over Euro-Pro’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 6. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant Hoover because it is registered to do

business in Massachusetts, transacts business in Massachusetts, and is otherwise subject to jurisdiction in this state. Hoover sells its products directly to persons residing in this judicial district via retail stores and the Internet. 7. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c). FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS 8. Euro-Pro has developed and marketed a line of portable steam mops which

include the Euro-Pro Shark Professional Steam Pocket Mop (Model No. S3601) (“Shark Steam Mop”). Euro-Pro’s Shark Steam Mop sanitizes hard, non-porous surfaces and cleans various surfaces throughout a consumer’s home or office without the use of chemicals. Euro-Pro’s Shark Steam Mop can be used on various types of hardwood floors and carpet. Because it uses no detergents or chemicals, the Shark Steam Mop is safe for tile, hardwood, stainless steel, marble, and ceramic flooring. 9. In addition to its steam products, Euro-Pro is a leading manufacturer and marketer

of vacuum cleaners. Euro-Pro has developed and marketed a line of upright bag-less vacuum cleaners including the Shark Navigator Lift-Away (Model No. NV350) and Shark Navigator Lift-Away Pro (Model No. NV356E) (collectively the “Shark Navigator”). 10. Euro-Pro sells its steam and vacuum products both to retail outlets and directly to

consumers. Euro-Pro advertises its steam and vacuum products through national television and print advertising campaigns as well as in-store collateral, product packaging, and Internet

3

advertising. As a result of this advertising, the Euro-Pro Vacuums and the Shark Steam Mop have attained widespread consumer awareness and approval. Euro-Pro and its trademarks SHARK and NAVIGATOR, have become household names and marks, and Euro-Pro is a market leader in the steam cleaning and upright vacuum sector. 11. Euro-Pro is also an innovator, developing new and more efficient products each

year, which has made it a market leader in the consumer steam market as well as a market leader in the vacuum industry. The success of Euro-Pro’s product designs makes it a regular target for its competitors’ product comparisons. 12. Hoover recently introduced a portable household steam cleaner that it markets,

distributes, and sells under the name TwinTank Steam Mop (“TwinTank”). 13. Hoover also manufactures, markets, and distributes the Hoover WindTunnel Air

vacuum (“WindTunnel”). 14. Hoover advertises the TwinTank and WindTunnel through, inter alia, product

packaging, nationwide print and television advertisements, and the Internet. Within the past few weeks, Hoover’s TwinTank and WindTunnel television infomercials began airing on nationwide cable channels and other media, and can be found at: http://www.acquirgy.com/drtv-long-form. Non-exclusive examples of Hoover’s advertising and packaging for these products are attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C. 15. Hoover markets the TwinTank and WindTunnel to the same consumers who are

actual or potential purchasers of the Shark Steam Mop and Euro-Pro’s Vacuums. 16. Hoover’s advertisements for the TwinTank and WindTunnel contain materially

false and misleading statements of fact, deceptive product comparisons, and omit relevant facts about the nature, quality, function and performance of the TwinTank and WindTunnel products

4

and competing steam and vacuum products manufactured and marketed by Euro-Pro. Defendant’s false and misleading statements are harmful to Euro-Pro and consumers alike. Hoover’s TwinTank Advertising Claims 17. Hoover’s new TwinTank product is a steam mop with two tanks—one that houses

water, and one that contains a cleaning solution. Hoover’s product materials instruct that once plugged in, the TwinTank creates and stores steam in the body of the product. After the TwinTank is sufficiently heated, the consumer depresses a trigger and steam is emitted from the mop. The TwinTank instruction booklet directs users to “[m]ove the Steam Mop slowly backwards and forwards across the floor [] paying particular attention to high traffic areas.” (TwinTank Instruction Manual attached hereto as Exhibit D, at 9.) 18. In addition to using steam as a method of cleaning, the TwinTank utilizes a

chemical cleaner, Hoover’s SteamPlus™ Cleaning Solution (“Hoover’s Cleaner”), to clean household surfaces. 19. Hoover instructs users that “disinfection” can only be attained with the TwinTank

by using the product according to the following disinfection instructions, which are contained in the TwinTank’s product manual: “Use steam alone. Do not use cleaning solution. Turn Clean Control™ dial to ‘OFF’. Connect the hard floor microfiber pad (see 2.6, A) and run a minimum of 4 strokes at a medium pace (5-7 seconds per 32” stroke) across same area. Allow to air dry.” (Ex. D, at 9.) 20. In its new advertising campaign for the Hoover TwinTank, Hoover makes a

number of false and misleading claims. These claims can be grouped into the following categories: (1) false disinfection claims; and (2) false comparative claims.

5

(1) 21.

False Disinfection Claims

Hoover’s advertisements extensively promote the TwinTank’s purported ability to

“disinfect” and “sanitize” floor surfaces using the product’s steam function alone, and not with the aid of Hoover’s proprietary cleaning solution. Examples of such steam-only disinfection claims made by Hoover include but are not limited to the following: (a) Voice-over states “produces true disinfecting steam,” while a small superscript on the bottom screen states: “Steam only setting.” [TwinTank television infomercial] (b) Large graphic states “TRUE DISINFECTING STEAM,” while a small superscript at the bottom of the screen states: “Steam only setting.” [TwinTank television infomercial] (c) “True disinfecting steam is ready to go in under 30 seconds,” while a small superscript at the bottom of the screen states: “Steam only setting.” [TwinTank television infomercial] (d) “And don’t forget, true disinfecting steam is especially important if you have children or pets,” while large graphic at top of the screen states: “TRUE DISINFECTING STEAM” and small superscript at bottom of the screen states: “Steam only setting.” [TwinTank television infomercial] (e) “Unlike some steam mops, the Hoover TwinTank Steam Mop produces true disinfecting steam.” Large graphic at top of the screen states: “True Disinfecting Steam.” Small superscript at bottom of the screen states: “Steam only setting.” [TwinTank television infomercial] (f) “Disinfects & Kills or Removes* 99.99% of harmful bacteria**” [Product Demo; Features, available at http://hoover.com/products/details/wh20200/twintanksteam-mop/] *With steam alone, per owner’s manual instructions. **Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538, Salmonella enterica ATCC 10708 (g) “Disinfects* & Kills or Removes Greater Than 99.99% of harmful bacteria**” [Product Demo; Intro, available at http://hoover.com/products/details/wh20200/twintank-steam-mop/] *With steam alone, on hard floors, per owner’s manual instructions. **Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538, Salmonella enterica ATCC 10708, S. aureus 33592 (MRSA). 6

(h) “Disinfects & Kills or Removes2 greater than 99.99% of harmful bacteria3 with steam alone including MRSA, Staph, and Salmonella” [available at http://hoover.com/products/details/wh20200/twintank-steam-mop/]
2 3

On hard floors, when used per owner?s [sic] manual instructions.

Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538, Salmonella enteric ATCC 10708, S. aureus 33592 (MRSA). (i) “Disinfects** & Kills or Removes Greater than 99.99% of Harmful Bacteria†” [TwinTank Product Packaging, Ex. A] ** With steam alone, on hard floors, per owner’s manual instructions.

Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538, Salmonella enterica ATCC 10708, S. aureus 33592 (MRSA).

(j) Disinfect with steam alone2 [available at http://hoover.com/products/details/wh20200tv/twintank-steam-mop-with-bonussolution-and-accessories/]
2

On hard floors, when used per owner?s [sic] manual instructions.

(k) “For disinfection make 4 strokes over a 32 inch length at a pace of 5 to 7 seconds per stroke while squeezing the trigger continuously.” [Video Instruction Guide, Steam Cleaning Hard Floors with Steam Only, available at http://hoover.com/products/details/wh20200tv/twintank-steam-mop-with-bonussolution-and-accessories/] 22. Pursuant to EPA standards, disinfection on hard, non-porous surfaces requires a

100% kill rate of the bacteria on 59 out of 60 test carriers. See EPA DIS/TSS 1 available at http://www.epa.gov/oppad001/dis_tss_docs/dis-01.htm. The English dictionary defines “disinfect” as “to rid of microorganisms potentially harmful to man, [especially] by chemical means.” Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged, HarperCollins Publishers (10th ed.) available at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disinfect. 23. In direct contradiction to its myriad “steam-only” disinfection and sanitization

claims, elsewhere and throughout Hoover’s infomercial, the Defendant repeatedly claims and represents that Euro-Pro’s competing product “that cleans with just steam can’t get it completely clean,” and that “steam alone” is incapable of cleaning surfaces. 7

24.

Hoover’s claim that the TwinTank product can “disinfect” surfaces when used as

demonstrated in Hoover’s infomercial is also literally false. Hoover’s demonstrations necessarily imply that the TwinTank “disinfects” surfaces immediately, or nearly immediately. Contrary to the demonstration, Defendant’s own product manual directs that a user can only disinfect hard surfaces by adhering to the following steps: “Use steam alone. Do not use cleaning solution. Turn Clean Control™ dial to ‘OFF’. Connect the hard floor microfiber pad (see 2.6, A) and run a minimum of 4 strokes at a medium pace (5-7 seconds per 32” stroke) across same area. Allow to air dry.” Hoover’s infomercial never shows the TwinTank product being used as directed. 25. Upon information and belief, Hoover’s instructions for disinfection do not

represent normal customer use of the TwinTank. Upon further information and belief, the TwinTank does not disinfect, if at all, when used as a relevant consumer would normally operate the product. (2) 26. False Comparative Claims

Despite its claim that the TwinTank can “disinfect” using steam alone, Hoover

also makes numerous superiority claims that its product “cleans better” than competing steam mops because the Hoover product employs special cleaning solution in addition to steam. These false comparative superiority claims include but are not limited to the following: (a) “Mops with just steam can’t completely clean.” [TwinTank television infomercial] (b) “Just steam and scrubbing aren’t enough to clean everything.” [TwinTank television infomercial] (c) “That’s because a steam mop that cleans with just steam can’t get it completely clean.” [TwinTank television infomercial] (d) “Clean[s] things that other steam mops can’t.” [TwinTank television infomercial]

8

(e) “If hot, steaming water alone could clean everything, you wouldn’t need to add detergent to a dishwasher to clean your dishes.” [TwinTank television infomercial] (f) “Simply add cleaning solution and watch tough dirt melt away. It’s why you have to add detergent to the dishwasher to clean the dishes.” [TwinTank television infomercial] (g) “Out Cleans other steam mops1 - CE testing to prove we out clean other leading steam mops when using the proprietary Hoover® SteamPlus™ Cleaning Solution.” [available at http://hoover.com/products/details/wh20200tv/twintanksteam-mop-with-bonus-solution-and-accessories/]
1

When used with Hoover SteamPlus Cleaning Solution. Compared to other Steam Mop models tested on hard floors per FCTP-0287p. (h) “OUT CLEAN other steam mops1 with Hoover® SteamPlus™ Cleaning Solution.” [available at http://hoover.com/products/details/wh20200tv/twintanksteam-mop-with-bonus-solution-and-accessories/]
1

When used with Hoover SteamPlus Cleaning Solution. Compared to other Steam Mop models tested on hard floors per FCTP-0287p. (i) “OUT CLEANS OTHER STEAM MOPS*” [TwinTank Product Packaging, Ex. A] * Than other steam mops models tested, on hard floors, per FCTP 0287p, when used with Hoover® SteamPlus™ Cleaning Solution. (j) “When used with Hoover® SteamPlus™ Cleaning Solution, our steam mop OUT CLEANS other steam mops.*” [TwinTank Product Packaging, Ex. A] * Than other steam mops models tested, on hard floors, per FCTP 0287p, when used with Hoover® SteamPlus™ Cleaning Solution.

27.

These comparative advertising claims are not only literally false but also self-

contradictory. Hoover cannot truthfully claim that its product “disinfects” using steam alone while elsewhere claiming that its product “out cleans” the competition because “steam alone isn’t enough to clean everything” and “mops with just steam can’t completely clean.” These claims flatly contradict one another and are therefore literally false and mislead consumers.

9

28.

The standard which Hoover promotes to consumers as establishing its “out

cleans” superiority claims is something Hoover calls FCTP-0287p, which is not a known or established industry standard or protocol. Hoover thereby misleads consumers by presenting “FCTP-0287p” as if it were an industry standard when, in fact, consumers have no idea and no way of knowing what Hoover’s so-called “standard” or “protocol” is measuring. 29. Hoover deceptively and falsely compares its TwinTank directly to the Euro-Pro

Shark Steam Mop while claiming that steam-only mops are insufficient to “clean” completely. Such claims include but are not limited to the following: (a) “Unlike competitors that rely on steam alone, Hoover provides a proprietary 100% biodegradable formula cleaning solution that allows the Hoover® TwinTank™ Steam Mop to OUT CLEAN other steam mops.” [available at http://hoover.com/products/details/wh20200tv/twintank-steam-mop-with-bonussolution-and-accessories/] (b) “The Hoover TwinTank Steam Mop is truly a steam mop for cleaning things that other steam mops can’t.” Stated while looking in the direction of the Shark Steam Mop. [TwinTank television infomercial] (c) Head-to-head demonstrations with the Hoover TwinTank and the Shark Steam Mop whereby the Shark Steam Mop’s ability to clean is made to look inferior when, in reality, the mops perform substantially the same or the Shark’s performance is superior. For example, during a head-to-head demonstration, the TwinTank cleans a permanent marker stain purportedly left behind by the Shark Steam Mop. [TwinTank television infomercial] 30. Hoover’s direct comparative advertisements and superiority claims are literally

false and suffer from the same irreconcilable contradictions about “steam-only” disinfection and sanitization alleged above. Additionally, Defendant’s head-to-head demonstrations of the TwinTank and Shark Steam Mop cleaning performance on permanent marker and grease stains are literally false and disproven by independent testing. 31. Hoover’s infomercial also depicts a purported user of both the TwinTank and the

Shark Steam Mop stating that “When I used my Shark Steam Mop, it just seemed like I was

10

pushing around a wet rag.” The testimonial message is that the Shark Steam Mop is less maneuverable (needs “pushing”), takes more time to dry (“wet”) and functions generally “like a wet rag.” Hoover’s claim is literally false. The Shark Steam Mop is just as maneuverable as, or more maneuverable than, the TwinTank, has comparable or faster floor-drying times than the TwinTank, and its efficacy cannot truthfully or fairly be compared to the wet rag mops depicted elsewhere in Hoover’s infomercial. 32. In addition to the foregoing, the Hoover TwinTank infomercial presents other

deceptive, unfair and misleading comparative tests and demonstrations whereby Plaintiff’s Shark Steam Mop is not operated in accordance with manufacturer specifications and directions, is moved more quickly over test areas than the Hoover steam mop, is not applied with equal pressure and time to stained areas as the Hoover steam mop, and is generally not provided the same opportunity to perform as the Hoover product. 33. Hoover compounds the foregoing literally false and deceptive comparative and

superiority claims by repeatedly announcing that the TwinTank performs so much better than the competition that it “makes other steam mops obsolete.” Hoover’s infomercial specifically targets the Shark Steam Mop in this respect, at one point displaying the Shark Steam Mop in conjunction with the bold-faced all-caps word “OBSOLETE” stamped over the image. For the reasons stated above, the TwinTank does not have superior cleaning abilities when compared to other “steam only” mops, and its claims to be so far superior that it renders competing products “obsolete” is therefore measurably and literally false.

11

Hoover’s WindTunnel Advertising Claims 34. Hoover also makes a number of false claims in its new infomercial for its

WindTunnel Air Vacuum. The claims are grouped under the following categories: (1) false comparative claims; and (2) false demonstrations. Hoover’s False Comparative Claims 35. Hoover’s WindTunnel infomercial makes several false comparative claims about

the attributes of its WindTunnel product as compared to a self-defined class of competing products. Hoover’s false comparative and superiority claims include but are not limited to the following: (a) “The most powerful, lightweight*, multi-cyclonic, no loss of suction upright vacuum there is. The “*” signifies an inconspicuous superscript that is almost illegible, which states “Air power measured at the nozzle per ASTM F558. Vacuums weighing less than 12.4 lbs. Suction tested per IEC60312-1.” (b) Directly compares the Hoover HEPA filter to a Shark Navigator motor filter made of “foam rubber.” The co-host tears the Shark filter in half and says “Come on. How long do you think that’s going to last?” No mention or comparison is offered to the Shark Navigator’s HEPA filter. (c) Demonstration comparing the purported ability of the WindTunnel and the Shark Navigator to clean dirt underneath a chair that is 11.5” off the floor. The host attempts to clean the dirt, located toward the back of the chair, by pushing the vacuums toward the soiled areas from the front of the chair. The co-hosts misleadingly depict the Shark Navigator as not being able to reach the dirt without the nozzle head lifting off the ground. However, if the Shark handle was tilted to the left, the vacuum would fit under the chair without the head lifting off the ground. (d) “Super-size capacity dust cup, which holds 25% more dirt than the competition.” (e) Depiction of a Shark Navigator in pieces, while the host states “some vacuums seem to require an advanced mechanical degree to assemble”. Immediately following this statement, and purportedly to show that the WindTunnel far surpasses other vacuums in terms of the ease of assembly, the WindTunnel infomercial includes a demonstration showing a number of children allegedly between 5 and 6 years old, each tasked with assembling a particular vacuum cleaner from an array of various makes and models, including what appears to be the Shark Navigator. When the children are told to begin assembling the vacuum

12

to which they have been assigned, they appear bewildered and confused by the task before them, except that the child assembling the WindTunnel immediately constructs the WindTunnel in a clearly rehearsed sequence. The child putting together the WindTunnel had obviously been coached and previously rehearsed the demonstration, while the other children had not been coached, or perhaps coached to appear bewildered. 36. The Hoover infomercial’s claim that the WindTunnel is the “most powerful,

lightweight*, multi-cyclonic, no loss of suction upright vacuum” is literally false and misleading to consumers. Hoover’s superiority “best in class” claim is repeatedly offered in comparison to the Shark Navigator through express references and head-to-head demonstrations and comparisons. Hoover’s “most powerful vacuum” claim leads consumers to believe that the WindTunnel is more powerful than the Shark Navigator, but Hoover attempts to expressly limit its “most powerful vacuum” claim to “[v]acuums weighing less than 12.4 lbs without power cord” and the Shark Navigator weighs approximately 12.5 lbs. – just an ounce or two more, and immaterial to most, if not all consumers. Thus, Hoover falsely claims that the WindTunnel is more powerful than the Shark Navigator, while its ad deceptively flashes mouse-print in an attempt to define Euro-Pro’s product out of the “class” in which Hoover claims its WindTunnel is “most powerful.” 37. Hoover expressly claims that its vacuum is the “most powerful,” while flashing in

inconspicuous superscript that this claim is based only on “air pressure measured at the nozzle.” Plaintiff’s Shark Navigator is proven to generate higher overall air pressure and power than the WindTunnel when measured from the end of the product’s hose, so Hoover’s claim is literally false. 38. The Hoover WindTunnel infomercial is also false and misleading when it directly

compares the WindTunnel’s HEPA filter, not with the Shark Navigator’s HEPA filter, but with a motor filter foam pad from Euro-Pro’s product, when, in fact, the Shark Navigator has both a

13

HEPA filter and a motor filter. In the comparison, Hoover’s infomercial presents graphic representations about the operation of the WindTunnel’s HEPA filter, then Defendant’s host immediately claims that the Shark Navigator filter is made of “foam rubber” and she tears the Shark filter in half, saying “Come on. How long do you think that’s going to last?” The Shark Navigator foam filter pad depicted in the infomercial is only one part of the product’s overall filtration system, which also includes a HEPA filter that the infomercial never mentions. The depicted foam pad functions solely to protect the Shark Navigator’s motor. Not only does Hoover present a misleading comparison between a HEPA and motor filter, but Euro-Pro’s own testing shows that its Shark Navigator motor filter has a longer usable life than the similar filter on Hoover’s WindTunnel. Finally, Hoover also touts the WindTunnel’s foam filter pad as being more durable than the Shark Navigator’s foam filter because Hoover’s foam pad in encased by a rubber ring. In reality, tests show that because it is encased in rubber, Hoover’s foam pad traps dirt in the filter over time and is impossible to completely clean, thereby impeding the filter’s durability and the vacuum’s performance. 39. The truthful answer to the infomercial host’s question about the Shark foam filter

– “How long do you think that’s going to last?” – is this: “Longer than the Hoover WindTunnel’s foam filter.” Hoover’s claim is literally false and misleading. 40. Hoover’s WindTunnel infomercial and product packaging claims that its HEPA

filter is over 99% efficient, but independent emissions testing demonstrates that the WindTunnel vacuum as a whole system performs at far less than 99% efficiency. Hoover’s infomercial is therefore false and deceptive because it combines these false claims with repeated references to the vacuum “trap[ping] dust and allergens so they won’t end up back in your carpet or in the air” and fails to disclose the material fact that the WindTunnel HEPA filter’s emissions efficiency

14

does not equate to the vacuum’s overall emissions efficiency, and a consumer will not, and cannot, experience over 99% emissions efficiency while operating a WindTunnel vacuum in normal use. 41. The Hoover infomercial’s demonstration showing the WindTunnel’s superior

ability to clean under furniture, when compared to the Shark Navigator, is also literally false and misleading. The Hoover infomercial depicts the Shark Navigator as simply unable to reach and clean dirt under a chair that is an unusual 11.5” off the floor, while showing that the WindTunnel can reach and clean the same area. Hoover’s superior maneuverability claims are literally false. Hoover’s advertisement violates the protocols of ASTM F420 (“Standard Test Method for Access Depth Under Furniture of Vacuum Cleaners”), which requires that the vacuum cleaner be placed “in its most advantageous position for cleaning under furniture.” Hoover’s infomercial does not place the Shark Navigator in the most advantageous position to reach the dirt, and Hoover’s comparison is contrived. In fact, if the Shark handle was tilted to the left, the vacuum would fit under the chair without the head lifting off the ground. Thus, Hoover’s deceptive demonstration misleads consumers to believe a falsity: that the Shark Navigator is less maneuverable than the WindTunnel. 42. Hoover’s infomercial manipulates another demonstration by depicting 5- and 6-

year-old children assembling various vacuum cleaners, including a Shark Navigator. The child assembling the WindTunnel has clearly been coached on how to put the product together, while Hoover’s ad depicts other children being dazed and confused by competing vacuum assembly tasks. Hoover’s demonstration is not only misleading, but dangerous, as it could be viewed as an invitation to violate industry standards warning against the use of vacuums by children. See, e.g., UL1017 § 10.2.6.

15

Hoover’s False Demonstrations 43. Hoover’s WindTunnel infomercial presents numerous rigged, immaterial and

other deceptive demonstrations of performance attributes of the WindTunnel as compared to competitors’ performance attributes, using modified versions of its own product to support superiority claims that the WindTunnel is the “most powerful” in its class and “never loses suction.” These deceptive and false demonstrations include but are not limited to the following: (a) A demonstration depicting fifteen Hoover WindTunnel vacuums stuck to the side of a wall, while a large graphic on the screen reads: “Never Loses Suction” and “15 WindTunnels stuck to the wall WITH THEIR OWN SUCTION!” The inconspicuous superscript at the bottom of the screen reads: “Gasket added do not try this at home.” As the host puts the 15th WindTunnel on the wall, the co-host says: “That’s number 15, Tony. All stuck to the wall with their own suction power.” (b) A demonstration showing nine empty water cooler jugs upside down connected to a rack made of pipes. A small superscript at the bottom of the screen reads: “Suction tested per IEC60312-1.” The co-hosts try to dent an empty water cooler jug with a hammer without success. Then the co-host states: “the Hoover Clean Team attached [sic] the [vacuum’s] suction hose to a plastic pipe, which in turn is attached to nine empty 5-gallon water cooler jugs. Plus, just to prove that the WindTunnel Air never loses suction, they filled the dirt cup to the brim with dirt.” Thereafter, the WindTunnel is connected to the pipe system and turned on. Oneby-one the jugs are compressed as the air is removed from each jug. (c) A demonstration where the WindTunnel is placed on top of a clear cylinder and a number of black weights appear to be lifted off the ground by the power of the vacuum’s suction. (d) A demonstration showing the WindTunnel stuck to the ceiling and left untouched. A graphic on screen says: “Stuck to Ceiling Under ITS OWN POWER!” An almost illegible superscript at the bottom of the screen says: “Gasket added do not try this at home. Air power measured at the nozzle per ASTM F558. Vacuums weighing less than 12.4 lbs. Suction tested per IEC60312-1.” This demo is shown at least three times during the WindTunnel infomercial. (e) A demonstration showing the WindTunnel appearing to lift 120 lbs. of weight. The WindTunnel infomercial claims: “Now our dirt team has placed 120 lbs. in this airtight acrylic cylinder. Phil over here is going to put the Hoover WindTunnel Air over the opening [of the acrylic cylinder], to see if its incredible suction can lift the 120 lbs. And, we also filled the dirt cup, just to prove that there is absolutely no loss of suction.” The co-host turns on the vacuum, and the

16

viewer is lead to believe that the WindTunnel lifted the 120 lbs. of weights to the top of the cylinder. The superscript at the bottom of the screen that appears once they turn on the vacuum, which is practically illegible, states: “Gasket added do not try this at home.” The co-host then says: “Remember the only thing that is pulling up all this weight is sheer suction.” Thereafter, the host says: “And, you know, if the Hoover WindTunnel Air’s suction can lift 120 lbs., imagine how clean your home will be.” The infomercial also proclaims: “It’s amazing to see the WindTunnel Air lift 120 lbs. of bulk weight.” 44. In connection with the foregoing rigged demonstrations, Hoover repeatedly

claims throughout the advertisement that the WindTunnel “never loses suction.” Examples of such claims include but are not limited to the following: (a) “Never loses suction” [WindTunnel television infomercial] (b) “And, it never loses suction.” – Simultaneously the screen shows a demonstration where Hoover claims that the WindTunnel is “Lifting 120 lbs of weight” through a cylindrical tunnel. A superscript at the bottom of the screen says: “suction tested per IEC60312-1.” [WindTunnel television infomercial] (c) Cleans the air moving through the filter to ensure no loss of suction*. [available at http://hoover.com/products/details/uh70400/windtunnel-air-bagless-upright/] * Per IEC 60312 4th Edition, Clause 2.9. Test results within accepted variability tolerance of 5%. (d) The multi-cylonic filtration system cleans the air moving through the filter to ensure no loss of suction*. [Product Demo, Intro, available at http://hoover.com/products/details/uh70400/windtunnel-air-bagless-upright/] * Per IEC 60312 4th Edition, Clause 2.9. Test results within accepted variability tolerance of 5%. 45. Hoover’s demonstrations coupled with the “no loss of suction” claims are literally

false and misleading. Hoover’s message is that the demonstrations establish that the WindTunnel product does not lose suction because it can perform seemingly large tasks even with a full dirt cup. But Hoover’s demonstrations prove nothing about the WindTunnel’s ability to maintain suction over time when used as directed or under normal operating conditions.

17

Rather, the Defendant’s stunts demonstrate only the product’s ability to create sealed suction force when the product is modified with a gasket on the bottom of the product. 46. The Hoover WindTunnel infomercial falsely claims that the product satisfies a

test that does not conform to the demonstration depicted in the advertisement. Text superimposed on the screen discloses “Suction tested per IEC60312-1.” Yet, the demonstration bears no resemblance whatsoever to IEC60312-1 as an industry standard for measuring suction. For example, during the infomercial demonstrations, the WindTunnel’s dust bin is clearly filled with large particulates and not the finer dust and dirt matter mandated by the referenced IEC60312-1 standard. Thus, Hoover’s representation constitutes a literally false establishment claim. 47. Hoover’s demonstrations show nothing more than the WindTunnel’s sealed

suction power, which is immaterial to ordinary use. Suction power does not equate to air power or cleaning ability. Hoover’s demonstrations for the WindTunnel have nothing to do with the performance of the WindTunnel vacuum as it would be used by the consumer, and instead present a variety of shop-worn gimmicks demonstrating the nature of vacuum suction. Hoover’s demonstrations mislead consumers about the WindTunnel’s abilities and supposed superiority as the “most powerful” vacuum in its class, purportedly while not losing suction, though does not provide material information about air power or any other industry-recognized, meaningful performance metrics for vacuum cleaners. 48. Hoover’s demonstrations use rigged and modified versions of WindTunnel

vacuums; to create sealed suction force, Hoover has affixed gaskets to the product. Hoover’s demonstrations mislead consumers into believing that they are purchasing a vacuum that can actually perform as demonstrated when, in fact, the WindTunnel product that consumers actually

18

receive is unable to perform the demonstrated stunts. Inconspicuous disclaimers associated with the wall and ceiling demonstrations, which are insufficient to change the overall message of the claims, disclose that the vacuums shown are actually modified versions of the Hoover WindTunnel. This alone proves that the WindTunnel cannot perform as advertised. COUNT ONE False Advertising and Unfair Competition In Violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act (TwinTank) 49. Euro-Pro hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation

of the Paragraphs above. 50. Hoover makes at least two types of false claims/omissions in its TwinTank steam

cleaner advertisements: (1) Hoover’s disinfection claims; and (2) Hoover’s comparative superiority claims. Hoover’s Disinfection Claims 51. Hoover’s advertising for the Hoover TwinTank makes claims, identified above in

paragraph 21, regarding the Hoover TwinTank’s ability to disinfect surfaces when used as directed or as depicted in Hoover’s advertising. Hoover’s claims are false and misleading for the reasons stated above in paragraphs 21 to 25. 52. Hoover’s claim that the TwinTank product can “disinfect” surfaces when used as

instructed is literally false. Pursuant to EPA standards, disinfection on hard, non-porous surfaces requires a 100% kill rate of the bacteria on 59 out of 60 test carriers. See EPA DIS/TSS 1 available at http://www.epa.gov/oppad001/dis_tss_docs/dis-01.htm. Upon information and belief, the TwinTank cannot disinfect a given surface when used as instructed on the “Steam Only” setting.

19

53.

Additionally, Hoover’s claim that the TwinTank product can “disinfect” surfaces

when used as demonstrated in Hoover’s infomercial is also literally false. Hoover’s demonstrations necessarily imply that the TwinTank “disinfects” surfaces immediately, or nearly immediately. However, the use of the TwinTank as depicted in the infomercial is contrary to Hoover’s own disinfection instructions located in the TwinTank’s product manual, which states that a user can only disinfect hard surfaces by adhering to numerous steps using the “steam only” setting, including running “a minimum of 4 strokes at a medium pace (5-7 seconds per 32” stroke) across same area.” (Ex. D, at 9.) Hoover’s infomercial never depicts the TwinTank being used as instructed. Consistent with the infomercial’s depiction of ordinary use, the Hoover TwinTank does not disinfect when used as a relevant consumer would normally use the product. 54. Because Hoover’s process for disinfection is not a normal use of the Hoover

TwinTank, one of two things will likely happen: (1) consumers will purchase the product only to later realize that the disinfection process is more complicated than originally thought; or worse (2) the consumer will use the Hoover TwinTank while incorrectly thinking that he or she is disinfecting the surfaces that are being cleaned. Hoover’s Comparative Superiority Claims 55. Hoover’s advertising for the Hoover TwinTank makes numerous claims,

identified above in paragraph 26, regarding the Hoover TwinTank’s superiority and comparing the TwinTank to its competition, and specifically to Euro-Pro’s Shark Steam Mop. Hoover’s claims are literally false and misleading for the reasons stated above in paragraphs 26 to 33. 56. Hoover’s infomercial makes multiple comparisons to steam mops that clean with

steam only. See supra Paragraphs 26 through 33. In its comparisons, Hoover claims that the TwinTank “outcleans” and is otherwise superior to other steam mops that only use steam

20

because “steam alone isn’t enough to clean everything” and “mops with just steam can’t completely clean.” Hoover’s claims are literally false and irreconcilably contradictory because Hoover claims, on the one hand, that its product can only “disinfect” surfaces using the steam function alone, while, on the other hand, Hoover claims that its product “outcleans” the competition because “steam alone isn’t enough to clean everything.” These claims flatly contradict one another and mislead consumers. 57. Hoover’s TwinTank infomercial also contains multiple comparative advertising

claims directly comparing its TwinTank mop to the Shark Steam Mop. See supra paragraphs 26 through 33. These comparisons show the Shark Steam Mop and the TwinTank side-by-side, cleaning permanent marker from a test surface. The infomercial shows the TwinTank allegedly outperforming the Shark Steam Mop. However, the Shark Steam Mop actually performs better than the TwinTank mop when cleaning permanent marker on the same or similar surfaces shown in Hoover’s infomercial, as confirmed by Euro-Pro’s independent testing. Furthermore, the Shark Steam Mop actually cleans better than the TwinTank because it has been proven to satisfy the EPA’s “disinfection” standard, whereas, upon information and belief, the TwinTank is incapable of meeting the EPA’s standard. 58. Hoover’s infomercial also makes false comparative superiority claims that its

TwinTank product is capable of “out cleaning” other steam mops because of its Hoover® SteamPlus™ Cleaning Solution function. See supra paragraphs 26 through 33. These comparative superiority claims are literally false because they give conflicting messages about the advantages of the Hoover® SteamPlus™ Cleaning Solution, which Hoover admits is unnecessary to attain “disinfection” with the TwinTank.

21

59.

Hoover’s infomercial also depicts a purported user of both the TwinTank and the

Shark Steam Mop, who states that “When I used the Shark Steam Mop, it seemed like I was pushing around a wet rag.” See supra paragraph 31. The testimonial message is that the TwinTank is more maneuverable and takes less time to dry than the Shark Steam Mop. This claim is literally false. To the contrary, the Shark Steam Mop is just as maneuverable as the TwinTank and has been proven to have faster floor-drying times than the TwinTank. 60. As detailed in paragraphs 1 through 33, above, Hoover’s advertising contains

materially false and misleading statements of fact and omission regarding the nature, quality, and performance of the TwinTank, that have deceived or have the tendency to deceive a substantial segment of the buying audience, including but not limited to false and misleading statements and omissions regarding: (1) the ability of the TwinTank to disinfect cleaning surfaces when used as directed by Hoover, (2) the superiority of the Hoover TwinTank to all other household steam cleaners that only utilize steam, namely Euro-Pro’s Shark Steam Mop, (3) and other abilities of the TwinTank. 61. Hoover causes, and has caused, its false and misleading advertising to enter

interstate commerce, including by making false and misleading claims in print advertising, on its products’ packaging, in its television advertising, and on various webpages. 62. Such false statements and omissions are material to the consumer’s purchasing

decision and have the effect of misrepresenting the nature and characteristics of the goods and services being offered by Hoover. 63. Such false statements and omissions have the effect of misrepresenting the nature

and characteristics of the goods and services being offered by Hoover’s competitors, including Euro-Pro.

22

64.

These false statements and omissions by Hoover constitute false advertising in

violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). 65. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts of Hoover alleged above,

Euro-Pro has suffered and will continue to suffer injury and irreparable harm to its business, including but not limited to monetary injury due to diversion of sales from itself to Hoover, as well as injury to its goodwill and market share. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Euro-Pro is entitled to damages for Hoover’s Lanham Act violations, and an accounting of profits made by Hoover on sales of its Hoover TwinTank, as well as recovery of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this action. 66. Upon information and belief, Hoover’s acts are willful, wanton, and calculated to

deceive, and are undertaken in bad faith, making this an exceptional case entitling Euro-Pro to recover additional damages and its reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117. 67. Upon information and belief, Hoover will continue to engage in the wrongful acts

alleged above unless enjoined by this Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116. Euro-Pro has no adequate remedy at law and is further entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Defendant’s unlawful conduct. COUNT TWO False Advertising and Unfair Competition In Violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act (WindTunnel) 68. Euro-Pro hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation

of the Paragraphs above. 69. Hoover makes at least two types of false claims/omissions in its WindTunnel

vacuum cleaner advertisements: (1) false comparative claims; and (2) false demonstrations.

23

False Comparative Claims 70. Hoover’s comparative claims related to its WindTunnel vacuum directly target

Euro-Pro and are false and misleading for the reasons stated above in paragraphs 35 to 42. 71. In one such claim, Hoover shows the Navigator in pieces and states that it takes

“an advanced mechanical degree” in order to assemble some vacuums. To further the point, Hoover gathered a number of children, purportedly ranging in age from 5 to 6 years, and instructed the children to assemble the vacuums to determine which vacuum is the easiest to assemble. Predictably, all the children appear to have difficulty putting together their vacuum with the exception of the child assembling the Hoover WindTunnel. 72. This demonstration is palpably false. Upon information and belief, the child

assembling the WindTunnel was coached because, while all the other children fumble with, and look dazed by, their task of constructing the parts for their respective vacuums, the child assembling the WindTunnel immediately constructs the WindTunnel in a clearly rehearsed sequence. 73. Additionally, the demonstration reflects an unfair comparison, because children

are not the target market for vacuum cleaner manufacturers. Whether a child can put together a vacuum has no bearing on the ease of assembly for the relevant consumer, which is material to the consumer’s purchasing decision. 74. When discussing the WindTunnel’s HEPA filter, the co-host of Hoover’s

infomercial removes the filter of the Navigator and states that the filter is made of foam rubber. The co-host then rips the Navigator’s filter in half stating “how long do you think that’s going to last.” Contrary to Defendant’s express and implied claims that the WindTunnel filter lasts longer and performs better than the Navigator’s filter, the vacuum filter for Euro-Pro’s vacuums,

24

when used as instructed, lasts longer and performs better than the filter for Hoover’s WindTunnel. Hoover’s claims to the contrary are false and misleading. 75. Hoover’s WindTunnel infomercial claims that its HEPA filter is over 99%

efficient, but independent emissions testing demonstrates that the WindTunnel vacuum as whole performs at far less than 99% efficiency. Defendant’s ad is therefore false and deceptive because it fails to disclose the material fact that the HEPA filter’s emissions efficiency does not equate to the vacuum’s overall efficiency, and a consumer will not experience over 99% emissions efficiency while operating a WindTunnel vacuum in normal use. 76. Hoover’s infomercial includes a demonstrative where the hosts try to clean

surface dirt located under a chair using the Shark Navigator and WindTunnel vacuums, reaching from the front of the chair. Allegedly, the Shark Navigator is unable to reach the soiled area. However, this demonstrative is misleading, if the handle of the Shark Vacuum was rotated to the left, the Shark would lay flatter without the head lifting off the ground and, thus, would fit easily under the chair with as much clearance as the Hoover. The Shark Navigator’s true function and performance was thereby misleadingly depicted by Hoover’s comparison advertisement. 77. In conjunction with this demonstration, Hoover sends the message to consumers

that if they purchase anything but the Hoover WindTunnel, they will need to move furniture to properly vacuum. Such a message is false and misleading. Hoover’s False and Misleading Product Demonstrations 78. In addition, Hoover’s infomercial contains a number of demonstrations that are

literally false and misleading for the reasons stated above in paragraphs 43 to 48. 79. The majority of Hoover’s demonstrations for the WindTunnel have nothing to do

with the performance of the WindTunnel vacuum as it would be used by the consumer, and

25

instead present a variety of shop-worn gimmicks demonstrating the nature of a vacuum while conveying nothing material about the WindTunnel’s supposed superiority. 80. One of Defendant’s gimmicks consists of placing a modified WindTunnel on the

ceiling or on the wall where the suction power of the vacuum allegedly holds the vacuum in place. These demonstratives are deceptive, false, and misleading and demonstrate nothing more than a vacuum’s sealed suction power, which does not equate to air power. No consumer would ever use a vacuum as depicted in the infomercial, nor could they. Inconspicuous disclaimers associated with the wall and ceiling demonstrations reveal that the vacuums shown are actually modified versions of the Hoover WindTunnel. The attempted disclaimers alone prove that the WindTunnel cannot perform as advertised. 81. Hoover’s ads also present an apparently legitimate attribute whereby Defendant

claims that its WindTunnel vacuum can lift 120 lbs. of weights using only the suction of the vacuum. While it appears that the vacuum is performing the task without modification, this gimmick measures only sealed suction and provides no material information about air power or any other industry-recognized, meaningful performance metric for vacuum cleaners. An inconspicuous disclaimer corresponding to the 120-lbs. demonstration indicates that a gasket has been added to a modified WindTunnel vacuum. A production model of the WindTunnel cannot perform as advertised, because it has not been altered like the vacuum used in the infomercial. 82. Upon information and belief, there is not 120 lifting pounds of force created by

the WindTunnel, and that fact is not disclaimed. Nor does the ability of a modified vacuum to lift 120 pounds in a sealed suction demonstration have any material bearing on the WindTunnel’s ability to clean a floor surface. The host’s statement to the contrary – “if the Hoover

26

WindTunnel Air can lift 120 lbs., imagine how clean your home will be” – is false and misleading. 83. In yet another demonstration, Hoover’s ad connects nine five-gallon water jugs to

a piping system which is attached to the WindTunnel. The host of the infomercial is purportedly unable to dent any of the water bottles with a hammer, but the WindTunnel is able to suction the air out of each of the water jugs when turned on. Not only is the WindTunnel’s ability to actually perform as suggested by the demonstration highly suspect, the demonstration has nothing to do with the vacuum cleaner’s ability to clean or its ability to not lose suction. Text superimposed on the screen discloses “Suction tested per IEC60312-1.” Yet, the demonstration bears no resemblance whatsoever to IEC60312-1. Among other things, the WindTunnel appears to be filled with large particulates and not the finer dust and dirt mandated by the referenced IEC60312-1 standard. 84. Through each of the above false and misleading demonstrations, Hoover makes

express and implied superiority claims that other vacuums cannot perform such feats as performed by the Hoover WindTunnel. 85. Hoover causes, and has caused, its false and misleading advertising to enter

interstate commerce, including by making false and misleading claims in print advertising, on its products’ packaging, in its television advertising, and on various webpages. 86. Such false statements and omissions are material to the consumer’s purchasing

decision and have the effect of misrepresenting the nature and characteristics of the goods and services being offered by Hoover.

27

87.

Such false statements and omissions have the effect of misrepresenting the nature

and characteristics of the goods and services being offered by Hoover’s competitors, including Euro-Pro. 88. These false statements and omissions by Hoover constitute false advertising in

violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). 89. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts of Hoover alleged above,

Euro-Pro has suffered and will continue to suffer injury and irreparable harm to its business, including but not limited to monetary injury due to diversion of sales from itself to Hoover, as well as injury to its goodwill and market share. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Euro-Pro is entitled to damages for Hoover’s Lanham Act violations, and an accounting of profits made by Hoover on sales of its Hoover WindTunnel, as well as recovery of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this action. 90. Upon information and belief, Hoover’s acts are willful, wanton, and calculated to

deceive, and are undertaken in bad faith, making this an exceptional case entitling Euro-Pro to recover additional damages and its reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117. 91. Upon information and belief, Hoover will continue to engage in the wrongful acts

alleged above unless enjoined by this Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116. Euro-Pro has no adequate remedy at law and is further entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Defendant’s unlawful conduct. COUNT III Violation of the Massachusetts Unfair Practices Act (Mass. Laws Ann. 93A § 11) (TwinTank) 92. Euro-Pro hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation

of the Paragraphs above.

28

93.

In construing violations under Mass. Laws Ann. ch. 93A §§ 1-11, the

Massachusetts Legislature intended that actions brought under Section 11 will be construed pursuant to Section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act. 94. Hoover’s false advertising claims listed above in paragraphs 1 through 33

constitute an unfair business practice, pursuant to Section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act, and an unfair method of competition or an unfair or deceptive act or practice, pursuant to Mass. Laws Ann. ch. 93A §§ 2, 11. 95. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts of Hoover alleged above,

Euro-Pro has suffered and will continue to suffer injury and irreparable harm to its business, including but not limited to monetary injury due to diversion of sales from itself to Hoover as well as injury to its goodwill and market share. Pursuant to Mass. Laws Ann. ch. 93A § 11, Euro-Pro is entitled to damages for Hoover’s actions, as well as recovery of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this action. 96. Upon information and belief, Hoover’s acts are willful, wanton, and calculated to

deceive, and are undertaken in bad faith, entitling Euro-Pro to recover triple, but no less than double, its damages and its reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Mass. Laws Ann. ch. 93A § 11. 97. Upon information and belief, Hoover will continue to engage in the wrongful acts

alleged above unless enjoined by this Court pursuant to Mass. Laws Ann. ch. 93A § 11. EuroPro has no adequate remedy at law and is further entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Defendant’s unlawful conduct.

29

COUNT IV Violation of the Massachusetts Unfair Practices Act (Mass. Laws Ann. 93A § 11) (WindTunnel) 98. Euro-Pro hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation

of the Paragraphs above. 99. In construing violations under Mass. Laws Ann. ch. 93A §§ 1-11, the

Massachusetts Legislature intended that actions brought under Section 11 will be construed pursuant to Section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act. 100. Hoover’s false advertising claims listed above in paragraphs 1 through 16 and 34

through 48 constitute an unfair business practice, pursuant to Section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act, and an unfair method of competition or an unfair or deceptive act or practice, pursuant to Mass. Laws Ann. ch. 93A §§ 2, 11. 101. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts of Hoover alleged above,

Euro-Pro has suffered and will continue to suffer injury and irreparable harm to its business, including but not limited to monetary injury due to diversion of sales from itself to Hoover as well as injury to its goodwill and market share. Pursuant to Mass. Laws Ann. ch. 93A § 11, Euro-Pro is entitled to damages for Hoover’s actions, as well as recovery of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this action. 102. Upon information and belief, Hoover’s acts are willful, wanton, and calculated to

deceive, and are undertaken in bad faith, entitling Euro-Pro to recover triple, but no less than double, its damages and its reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Mass. Laws Ann. ch. 93A § 11. 103. Upon information and belief, Hoover will continue to engage in the wrongful acts

alleged above unless enjoined by this Court pursuant to Mass. Laws Ann. ch. 93A § 11. Euro-

30

Pro has no adequate remedy at law and is further entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Defendant’s unlawful conduct. COUNT V False Advertising (Mass. Laws Ann. 266 §§ 91 et al) (TwinTank – Injunctive Relief) 104. Euro-Pro hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation

of the Paragraphs above. 105. Euro-Pro has been injured as a result of Hoover’s false and misleading claims

concerning the performance of Euro-Pro’s products. 106. Euro-Pro has been injured as a result of Hoover’s false and misleading claims

concerning the performance of Hoover’s TwinTank. 107. Upon information and belief, Hoover’s acts are willful, wanton, and calculated to

deceive, and are undertaken in bad faith, knowing that its advertising claims are false and misleading. 108. Upon information and belief, Hoover will continue to engage in the wrongful acts

alleged above unless enjoined by this Court pursuant to Mass. Laws Ann. ch 266 § 91B. EuroPro has no adequate remedy at law and is further entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Defendant’s unlawful conduct. COUNT VI False Advertising (Mass. Laws Ann. 266 §§ 91 et al) (WindTunnel – Injunctive Relief) 109. Euro-Pro hereby incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation

of the Paragraphs above. 110. Euro-Pro has been injured as a result of Hoover’s false and misleading claims

concerning the performance of Euro-Pro’s products.

31

111.

Euro-Pro has been injured as a result of Hoover’s false and misleading claims

concerning the performance of Hoover’s WindTunnel. 112. Upon information and belief, Hoover’s acts are willful, wanton, and calculated to

deceive, and are undertaken in bad faith, knowing that its advertising claims are false and misleading. 113. Upon information and belief, Hoover will continue to engage in the wrongful acts

alleged above unless enjoined by this Court pursuant to Mass. Laws Ann. ch 266 § 91B. EuroPro has no adequate remedy at law and is further entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Defendant’s unlawful conduct. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Euro-Pro seeks the following relief: (a) That the Court enter judgment finding Defendant guilty of false advertising and

unfair competition in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act with respect to the marketing and advertising of the Hoover TwinTank and WindTunnel; (b) That the Court enter judgment finding Defendant guilty of violating

Massachusetts Unfair Practices Act, Mass. Laws Ann. Ch. 93A § 11, and False Advertising, Mass. Laws Ann. 266 §§ 91 et al., which prohibit unfair practices and false advertising pursuant to law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; (c) That the Court grant preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, enjoining and

restraining Defendant and its agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all those in active concert and participation with it from making false and misleading statements of fact in any advertising concerning the Hoover TwinTank and WindTunnel, including but not limited to the false statements identified above;

32

(d)

That the Court award Euro-Pro treble its damages according to proof, but in no

case less than double its damages, exclusive of interest and costs plus prejudgment interest; (e) That the Court award an accounting and disgorgement of Defendant’s profits

resulting from its violations of the Lanham Act pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, in an amount to be proven at trial; (f) That the Court adjudge that Defendant has willfully and deliberately engaged in

false advertising and unfair practices and find that this is an “exceptional case” under the Lanham Act; (g) That the Court award Euro-Pro its costs and attorneys’ fees and such other, future

and additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper; and (h) That the Court direct Defendant to issue corrective advertising retracting and

stating that the identified statements were false and misleading. JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all claims as to which jury trial may be had. Dated: March 28, 2012 Respectfully submitted, EURO-PRO Operating LLC By its attorney, __/s/ R. David Hosp___________________ R. David Hosp (BBO# 634091) dhosp@goodwinprocter.com Chelsea Teachout (BBO# 673371) cteachout@goodwinprocter.com GOODWIN PROCTER LLP Exchange Place Boston, Massachusetts 02109-2881 Tel: (617) 570-1000 Fax: (617) 523-1231

33