Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 10
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1212 (2026)

Deceptive trade practices

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Lists.  A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of the person's business, vocation or occupation, the person:  
A. Passes off goods or services as those of another;   [PL 1969, c. 503 (NEW).]
B. Causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval or certification of goods or services;   [PL 1969, c. 503 (NEW).]
C. Causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection or association with, or certification by, another;   [PL 1969, c. 503 (NEW).]
D. Uses deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services;   [PL 1969, c. 503 (NEW).]
E. Represents that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits or quantities that they do not have, or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation or connection that the person does not have;   [RR 2023, c. 2, Pt. C, §24 (COR).]
F. Represents that goods are original or new if they are deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used or secondhand;   [PL 1973, c. 625, §53 (AMD).]
G. Represents that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another;   [PL 1969, c. 503 (NEW).]
H. Disparages the goods, services or business of another by false or misleading representation of fact;   [PL 1969, c. 503 (NEW).]
I. Advertises goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised;   [PL 1969, c. 503 (NEW).]
J. Advertises goods or services with intent not to supply reasonably expectable public demand, unless the advertisement discloses a limitation of quantity;   [PL 1969, c. 503 (NEW).]
K. Makes false or misleading statements of fact concerning the reasons for, existence of or amounts of, price reductions; or   [PL 1969, c. 503 (NEW).]
L. Engages in any other conduct that similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.   [RR 2023, c. 2, Pt. C, §24 (COR).]
[RR 2023, c. 2, Pt. C, §24 (COR).]
2.  Complaint.  In order to prevail in an action under this chapter, a complainant need not prove competition between the parties or actual confusion or misunderstanding.  
[PL 1969, c. 503 (NEW).]
3.  Application.  This section does not affect unfair trade practices otherwise actionable at common law or under other statutes of this State.  
[PL 1969, c. 503 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1969, c. 503 (NEW). PL 1973, c. 625, §53 (AMD). RR 2023, c. 2, Pt. C, §24 (COR).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: Advanced Constr. Corp. v. Pilecki, 2006 ME 84 (Me. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Advanced Constr. Corp. v. Pilecki, 2006 ME 84 (Me. 2006). “See 10 M.R.S. § 1212. [¶ 12] Nonetheless, even though there may have been sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Spence had abused the privilege of a separate corporate identity, there was no evidence from which the jury could have found that an unjust or inequitable…”
J.S. McCarthy, Co. v. Brausse Diecutting & Converting Equip., Inc., 340 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D. Me. 2004). · cites it 2× “See 10 M.R.S.A. § 1212(1)(G). The UDTPA contains the following remedy provision: “A person likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice of another may be granted an injunction against it under the principles of equity and on terms that the court considers reasonable.”
Sebago, Inc. v. Beazer East, Inc., 18 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D. Mass. 1998). “See 10 M.R.S.A. § 1212. Sebago, therefore, has not demonstrated that it is likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice.”
Doe v. Solvay Pharm., Inc., 350 F. Supp. 2d 257 (D. Me. 2004). “Count II alleges a violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 10 M.R.S.A. § 1212. Count III alleges a violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act, 5 M.”
Greentree Labs., Inc. v. G.G. Bean, Inc., 718 F. Supp. 998 (D. Me. 1989). · cites it 2× “It also asserts claims for common law unfair competition and violation of the Maine Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 10 M.R.S.A. § 1212. Plaintiff has held a federally registered trademark for ODOKLEEN since November 23, 1976.”
Sebago Lake Camps, Inc. v. Simpson, 434 A.2d 519 (Me. 1981). “In its order, the court referred to 10 M.R.S.A. § 1212(1)(B) and (C). These subsections specify that a person engages in a deceptive trade practice if he: [cjauses likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval or certification of goods or…”
Butcher Co., Inc. v. Bouthot, 124 F. Supp. 2d 750 (D. Me. 2001). “The Maine Common Law Trademark, Trade Dress, and Unfair Competition Claims and the Maine Deceptive Trade Practices Claim The parties have treated the Maine common law trademark, trade dress, and unfair competition claims asserted in Count V of the Complaint, as well as the Maine…”
L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publ'g, Inc., 625 F. Supp. 1531 (D. Me. 1986). “Count V The complaint also alleges a violation of Maine’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 10 M.R.S.A. § 1212. The Court agrees with the Defendants that likelihood of confusion must be proved before violation of that statute can be established.”
Kardex Sys., Inc. v. Sistemco N.V., 583 F. Supp. 803 (D. Me. 1984). “§ 1125 (a), and constitutes a deceptive trade practice under both the Maine Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 10 M.R.S.A. § 1212, and similar acts of other states in which Kardex has carried out such conduct.”
Town & Country Motors, Inc. v. Bill Dodge Auto. Grp., Inc., 115 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D. Me. 2000). “Deceptive Trade Practices Act Town and Country relies on two subsections of 10 M.R.S.A. § 1212(1) (West 1997). Subsection (L) prohibits conduct which “similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding.”
165 Park Row, Inc. v. JHR Dev., LLC, 967 F. Supp. 2d 405 (D. Me. 2013). “Count IV Count IV of the First Amended Complaint alleges unfair competition under Maine state law, specifically 10 M.R.S.A. § 1212. Complaint ¶¶ 43-46. *417 This claim also requires proof of secondary meaning, and the parties apparently agree that the same legal standards apply.”
Wild Willy's Holding Co., Inc. v. Palladino, 463 F. Supp. 2d 65 (D. Me. 2006). “§ 1125 (a) (Count III), state unfair competition/deceptive trade practices, 10 M.R.S.A. § 1212 (Count IV), and state dilution, 10 M.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1212(1) — 3 cases
Town & Country Motors, Inc. v. Bill Dodge Auto. Grp., Inc., 115 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D. Me. 2000). “Deceptive Trade Practices Act Town and Country relies on two subsections of 10 M.R.S.A. § 1212(1) (West 1997). Subsection (L) prohibits conduct which “similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding.”
Patane v. Nestle Waters North Am., Inc. (D. Conn. 2020).
Combined Mgmt., Inc. v. World Wide Pers. Servs. of Maine, Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2002).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1212(1)(A) — 1 case
Vacation Hotdeal Cos., Inc. v. Easy Timeshare Resales (Me. Super. Ct 2011).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1212(1)(B) — 2 cases
Sebago Lake Camps, Inc. v. Simpson, 434 A.2d 519 (Me. 1981). “In its order, the court referred to 10 M.R.S.A. § 1212(1)(B) and (C). These subsections specify that a person engages in a deceptive trade practice if he: [cjauses likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval or certification of goods or…”
The Knowles Co. v. N.E. Harbor Insurers (Me. Super. Ct 2003).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1212(1)(G) — 1 case
J.S. McCarthy, Co. v. Brausse Diecutting & Converting Equip., Inc., 340 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D. Me. 2004). “See 10 M.R.S.A. § 1212(1)(G). The UDTPA contains the following remedy provision: “A person likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice of another may be granted an injunction against it under the principles of equity and on terms that the court considers reasonable.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1212(2) — 1 case
The Knowles Co. v. N.E. Harbor Insurers (Me. Super. Ct 2003).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1212(3) — 1 case
J.S. McCarthy, Co. v. Brausse Diecutting & Converting Equip., Inc., 340 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D. Me. 2004). “See 10 M.R.S.A. § 1212(1)(G). The UDTPA contains the following remedy provision: “A person likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice of another may be granted an injunction against it under the principles of equity and on terms that the court considers reasonable.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1212(L) — 1 case
Maietta Constr., Inc. v. City of Portland (Me. Super. Ct 2004).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1212(l)(B) — 1 case
Mitchell v. Cent. Nat'l Gattesman, Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2017).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.