This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The statements were “commercial advertising meant to sell a product, and generally there ‘can be no constitutional objection to the suppression of commercial messages that do not accurately inform the public.’” The First Amendment has long coexisted with no-fault falseadvertising laws. The California Supreme Court reversed.
Safelite allegedly falselyadvertised that (1) “if damage spreads beyond the size of a dollar bill, a replacement will be necessary”; (2) “when a chip is smaller than a dollar bill, it can usually be repaired without replacing the windshield.” Safelite counterclaimed for trade secret theft not related to advertising.
Was this commercial advertising or promotion? Elysium argued that the website as a whole was a referral website for Tru Niagen, which advertised Tru Niagen at the top of every page. Thus, any falseadvertising claim would lie against Albaum, not [directly] against ChromaDex. You can find out more here: [link].
Restaurants who partner with Grubhub pay it a percentage for “an additional way of generating orders, internet advertising, and a delivery infrastructure.” Plaintiffs alleged that, since its founding (2004), Grubhub only included restaurants on its platform who agreed to appear.
Lanham Act falseadvertising: Failing to delete email and voicemail accounts is not “commercial advertising or promotion.” Omissions and inactions of this sort do not constitute either ordinary advertising or “a systematic communicative endeavor to persuade possible customers to buy the seller’s product.”
September 14, 2004. 271 , Trademark Infringement, Trademark Counterfeiting, and Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, and FalseAdvertising, under 15 U.S.C. §§ 114 and 1125(a). Registration No. Registration Date. OPTISELECT. May 16, 2017. April 29, 2008. April 9, 2019. January 6, 2015.
in biochemistry and history from the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities in 2004. Vivian Cheng focuses her practice on trademark and copyright litigation and also counsels clients on a broad range of issues relating to trademark, trade dress, and copyright protection and enforcement, unfair competition, and falseadvertising.
Nonprofit allegations: In 2004, GCE—which became a publicly traded company—purchased what is now GCU and began operating it as a for-profit institution. He made a similar statement in 2019 during a GCE earnings call attributing unexpectedly good new student online growth to the non-profit advertising. Defendants mostly complied. “If,
for deceptive advertising of dietary supplements in violation of the FTCA and the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act. Since 2004, she worked as a high school teacher at a homeschool co-op in Michigan. In general, advertisements provide consumers with information regarding products or services for sale in commerce.
The court recounts the perennially problematic Brookfield case and how the 2004 Playboy v. Plus, does this mean that rival apps can’t advertise themselves as rivals or engage in comparative advertising because the app stores aren’t properly labeling the ads, even if the advertisers are engaging in nominative use?
Ford advertised its Shelby GT350 Mustang as “track ready.” “But As for the facts: The Shelby is an upgrade of the standard Mustang and, importantly here, was advertised as “an all-day track car that’s also street legal.” Track-readiness was a central theme in Ford’s Shelby advertising. Tershakovec v. Ford Motor Company, Inc.,
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content