article thumbnail

California Supreme Court reaffirms strict liability for false advertising in Serova

43(B)log

The First Amendment has long coexisted with no-fault false advertising laws. Citing Dastar and Rogers ; noting in a footnote that Dastar suggested that Lanham Act false advertising claims might sometimes govern statements about artistic provenance without raising any First Amendment concern.] 4th 135 (2004); cf.

article thumbnail

Cracks in the foundation: Laches and proximate cause defeat auto glass false advertising claim

43(B)log

Safelite allegedly falsely advertised 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.” can be safe and is viable.” Were plaintiffs’ injuries proximately caused by Safelite?

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

Grubhub's listing of unaffiliated restaurants on its platform could infringe TM

43(B)log

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.

article thumbnail

influencers aren't advertisers' agents, materiality can be common sense, & more in supplement case

43(B)log

Thus, any false advertising claim would lie against Albaum, not [directly] against ChromaDex. But the court held that “the FAQs as a whole do not qualify or dispel the notion that Brenner was the one who discovered NR and that he did so in 2004.”

article thumbnail

maintaining ex-employees' voicemail/email doesn't violate Lanham Act or right of publicity

43(B)log

Lanham Act false advertising: 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.”

article thumbnail

Gema USA, Inc. Sues Former Employee for Alleged Patent & Trademark Infringement

Indiana Intellectual Property Law

September 14, 2004. 271 , Trademark Infringement, Trademark Counterfeiting, and Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, and False Advertising, 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.

article thumbnail

Fish & Richardson Elevates 17 Attorneys to Principal 

Fish & Richardson Trademark & Copyright Thoughts

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 false advertising.