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
Thus, any falseadvertising claim would lie against Albaum, not [directly] against ChromaDex. What about statements about how a product was “designed”? Elysium said that its proprietary formulation of two ingredients was “designed” to work together synergistically.
According to the complaint, Gema is a worldwide leader in the design and manufacture of electrostatic powder coating control units, and powder feed systems. The Design Patents are for a variety of powder guns and spray equipment. September 14, 2004. They allege to be an Integrator of Gema Products, not a Gema Distributor.
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.”
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.
Yet, of the five Shelby trims, the Base and Technology trims lacked “transmission and differential coolers,” a feature—originally included as standard on all Shelbys—that is designed to prevent engine overheating. 2004), abrogated in part on other grounds by Bridge v. And it rejected plaintiffs’ invocation of Klay v. Humana, 382 F.3d
Since 2004, she worked as a high school teacher at a homeschool co-op in Michigan. Under Section 12 of the FTC Act, an “advertisement” is a publication that has the “tendency or capability to induce the sale of [a] product.” Parks, who had (as relevant) a Ph.D.
The court recounts the perennially problematic Brookfield case and how the 2004 Playboy v. Or, at the most, confuse Defendant’s app with Plaintiffs’ This situation is different from the websites in Network Automation and Playboy, which were clearly distinguished with ad designations. Reyes & Adler v.
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