Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on July 14, 2011.

Before: SLOVITER, FUENTES, AND FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-appellants QVC, Inc., and Qhealth, Inc. (collectively, "QVC"), appeal the denial of their request for a preliminary injunction against defendant-appellees Your Vitamins, Inc., and Andrew Lessman (collectively, "Lessman"). For the reasons given, we will affirm the decision of the District Court.

Because we write primarily for the parties, we set forth only the facts and history that are relevant to our conclusion.Andrew Lessman owns a company called Your Vitamins, Inc., d/b/a Procaps Labs, which sells a product called "Healthy Hair, Skin, and Nails," as well as various products containing reservatrol. He used to sell his vitamin products on QVC, but, several years ago, switched to QVC's rival, HSN. Some time after the switch, QVC introduced a supplement called "Healthy Hair, Skin, and Nails" ("QVC's Healthy HSN"), the same name that Lessman uses for his own supplement. QVC also sells several forms of a reservatrol supplement that compete with Lessman's versions.

In January 2010, shortly after the introduction of QVC's Healthy HSN, Lessman posted several blog posts on his website, complaining about what he perceived to be the unfairness of QVC's using the name of his product for its own. In addition to complaining about QVC's conduct, Lessman alleged that (1) QVC's Healthy HSN is over 90% additives; (2) "there is a significant body of troubling research that connects hyaluronic acid, an ingredient in QVC's Healthy HSN, to cancer, that "it is totally useless and potentially harmful," and, while it "does not necessarily `cause' cancer...credible research points to a relationship and mechanism, which should preclude its use in vitamins"; (3) that Healthy Hair's silica is "more common[ly]" known as "sand or glass" and "We also use silica in our Healthy Hair Skin & Nails, but because we recognize its solubility limitations, we include our soluble organic silicon"; and (4) that QVC's reservatrol product includes 3 artificial colors, "is almost two-thirds additives," comes from polygonum cuspidatum, not Japanese knotweed, contains a Healthy Heart Blend, "an all but meaningless list of seven different botanicals—NONE of which states a standardization of any kind," and (in drink form) contains 4 grams of sugar per serving from "a mystery source." He also made a number of general pejorative remarks about QVC's products, calling them "ridiculous," "embarrassing," "sad," and "disturbing."

QVC sued, alleging false advertising in violation of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, as well as bringing state-law claims. It sought an injunction against the continued publication of Lessman's blog posts. The District Court denied the injunction, finding that QVC had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. QVC then brought the present appeal.

2. QVC argues that even a single instance of confusion may be sufficient to establish liability. However, every case it cites for this proposition concerns deception under the other branch of the Lanham Act—that is, with respect to trademark confusion. Even in that context, this proposition is not necessarily accepted. See Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc.,   561 F.Supp.2d 368 , 385-86 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). Giving full weight to the relevant handful of blog comments, we will not disturb the District Court's finding that they were "insufficient to satisfy plaintiff's burden that the advertising tends to deceive or mislead a substantial portion of the intended audience." AT&T, 42 F.3d at 1443 (internal citation omitted).