Breeding or Puppy Mills
Displaying 111 - 120 of 164
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| Pet Purchaser Protection/Puppy "Lemon Laws" | |
| Petconnect Rescue, Inc. v. Salinas | Plaintiffs are animal rescue organizations and an individual consumer alleging that the Defendants import non-rescue dogs into California and sell these dogs under the fraudulent misrepresentation that the dogs are rescued animals. Plaintiffs allege that the Rothman Defendants broker the sale of dogs bred for profit from “puppy mills” in the Midwest to pet stores in southern California which harms consumers by defrauding them and making them believe they are adopting a "rescue animal" (what the Plaintiffs have termed as "pet laundering"). In addition, plaintiffs alleged Lanham Act violations for trademark infringement. Before the court is a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants. In denying the motion to dismiss, the court held that Plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to state a claim that the Moving Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to sell non-rescue dogs as rescue dogs under the “Pet Connect Rescue” name. |
| PetConnect Rescue, Inc. v. Salinas | PetConnect Rescue, Inc., Lucky Pup Dog Rescue.com and Sarah Gonzalez (“Plaintiffs”) alleged that the Defendants fraudulently represented dogs that the Defendants sold as rescue animals in order to circumvent California law prohibiting the sale of non-rescue dogs in pet stores. On April 6, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the Defendants alleging trademark infringement and dilution under the Lanham Act, unfair business practices under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), fraud, and accounting. Several Defendant filed motions to dismiss and to strike sections of the amended complaint. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California found that Plaintiff PetConnect alleged a cognizable injury in fact in that the Defendants’ use of an infringing mark harmed Plaintiff PetConnect Rescue’s reputation and caused consumer confusion. The Defendants’ Pet Connect Rescue, Inc. brokered the sale of dogs from puppy mills rather than rescue dogs which affected Plaintiff PetConnect’s reputation. The Court also found that Plaintiff PetConnect Rescue raised a claim within the Lanham Act’s zone of interests because the Lanham Act’s protections extended to non-profit organizations’ use of marks, even when those marks do not accompany a sale. The Court refused to dismiss Plaintiffs claims regarding trademark infringement. The Court also refused to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claims under the Lanham Act because the matter of whether Plaintiff’s mark was distinct and had acquired a secondary meaning was a matter more appropriate when the evidentiary record becomes further developed. As for the Unfair Competition claim, the Court found that the Plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts to state a UCL violation. The Court subsequently rejected the Defendants’ motions to strike thirty-four lines or phrases from the amended complaint because Plaintiff’s use of the terms “puppy mill,” and the allegations that Defendants operate “fake” entities that “induce” purchases, reflected Plaintiff’s allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. The Court found that the Plaintiffs’ references were pertinent to the Plaintiff’s allegations. The Court ultimately denied each of the Defendant’s motions to dismiss and strike. |
| Policies to Promote Socialization and Welfare in Dog Breeding | |
| Putnam County Humane Society v. Marjorie Duso d/b/a/ Oakwood Kennels, Putnam County Florida |
|
| Resolucion 841-2003-SA-DM, 2003 - Peru | Esta ley añade a la legislación actual normas relativas a los centros de atención canina y a la salud y el manejo de los perros a su cuidado. |
| Resolution 841-2003-SA-DM, 2003 - Peru | This law adds to the present legislation regulations regarding dog care centers and the health and handling of the dogs in their care. |
| RI - Breeders - Part 4. Rules and Regulations Governing Animal Care Facilities | These rules and regulations are established to provide minimum standards to govern all licensed or registered animal care facilities in Rhode Island. They serve as standards for the construction and maintenance of such facilities, the care of animals in those facilities, as well as the criteria for inspectors to use when conducting inspections for licensure or in response to a complaint concerning their operation. They are considered minimum standards that must be maintained. |
| RI - Pet Sales - Chapter 25. Pet Warranties--Dogs | This Rhode Island chapter enacted in 2007 created a remedy for purchasers who are sold dogs with disease or hereditary defects. Upon sale, a seller is required to give purchasers a written statement that gives the dog's breed, breeder, license number (if applicable), a record of inoculations, and a record of the dog's veterinary diagnoses and treatments. Both the seller and purchaser must sign and date a written statement from the seller that states that the dog either has not known disease, illness, or hereditary condition that adversely affects its health, or a statement that fully describes the diseases or conditions. A purchaser is entitled to relief from the seller after the purchase of a dog if within twenty (20) days after the purchase of the dog, a licensed veterinarian states in writing that the animal is suffering from or has died from an illness, disease or other defect adversely affecting the animal's health and that this condition existed in the dog on or before delivery to the purchaser, or within two (2) years after the purchase of the animal, a licensed veterinarian states in writing that the animal possesses or has died from a congenital or hereditary condition adversely affecting its health. |
| Rotunda v. Haynes | The plaintiff in this case filed suit against the defendant, a dog breeder, to recover medical fees after receiving a dog that had a “severe genetic heart defect.” The dog was purchased by a third party and given to plaintiff as a gift. The court in this case held that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages under the General Business Law or the Uniform Commercial Code. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages under the General Business Law because the dog was not actually purchased by plaintiff. In addition, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover under the Uniform Commercial Code because plaintiff was unable to establish “privity with the defendant or personal injuries arising from the alleged defect,” which are required in order to recover damages. The judgment was affirmed. |