Remove 2003 Remove Advertising Remove Marketing
article thumbnail

False Patent Marking as False Advertising: Overcoming Dastar

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch The Federal Circuit is set to consider the use of terms like “patented,” “proprietary,” and “exclusive” in commercial advertising can be actionable under § 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act when their use is not entirely accurate. Crocs largely prevailed in those actions. ” Dawgs brief.

article thumbnail

Facebook Defeats Lawsuit Over Discriminatory Housing Ads–Vargas v. Facebook

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This lawsuit alleges that Facebook is liable for Fair Housing Act discrimination purportedly enabled by its self-service advertising tools. The plaintiffs allege Facebook had a role in “creating, promoting use of, and profiting from paid advertisers’ use of the Targeting Ad tools.”

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Publicity Rights Concerning Sports Athletes

IP and Legal Filings

i] In principle, the Delhi High Court has recognized publicity rights in the case of ICC Development (International) Ltd v Arvee Enterprises (2003). [ii] ii] 2003 VIIAD Delhi 405, 2003 (26) PTC 245 Del, 2004 (1) RAJ 10 [iii] The Trademarks Act, 1999. [iv] ii] It was the first given judgment dealing with publicity rights.

article thumbnail

OM Weekly Digest 07/28/22

Olartemoure Blog

The Andean Community has come up with a new Patent Examination Manual for IP offices throughout the community, updating the current Patent Manual published back in 2003. The above shows the intention to protect the fundamental right of habeas data in all arenas, given it extends to all digital advertising campaigns. .

article thumbnail

2023 Internet Law Year-in-Review

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

My roundup of the top Internet Law developments of 2023: 10) California court bans targeted advertising (?). Regulators have sought to suppress online targeted advertising for years, with only minimal success. In turn, advertisers have fled Twitter. Then, in Liapes v. Musk has bridged that gap. unless you are a Nazi or wannabe.

Law 111
article thumbnail

Modern Foods v. Modern Snacks: A Pragmatic Approach to Trademark Infringement Suit Injunctions

SpicyIP

The plaintiff’s case was a standard trademark infringement and passing off plea, founded upon its extensive advertisements, market share, goodwill and reputation and the defendant using a similar website and the word ‘MODERN’ in its marks.

article thumbnail

Finding the Real “Burger King”: Identical Marks & Prior Use in the Pune Eatery Case

SpicyIP

The eatery owners argued that they had been using the name Burger King since 1992, which was over two decades before Burger King US entered the Indian market in 2014. It becomes critical to ask whether prior use in the worldwide market suffices in such cases.