Remove 2005 Remove Advertising Remove False Advertising Remove Litigation
article thumbnail

Fish & Richardson Elevates 17 Attorneys to Principal 

Fish & Richardson Trademark & Copyright Thoughts

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. in computer engineering from Pennsylvania State University in 2005.

article thumbnail

is there a difference between "clinically tested" and "clinically proven" to reasonable consumers?

43(B)log

The injunctive relief does what this xkcd cartoon mocks: Alt text: Blatantly banking on customers not understanding that it's like a Hollywood studio advertising that their new movie was 'watched by Roger Ebert'. If the relief is for only two years, then why does it matter if relief is pushed out to the future?)

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Judge Noreika Denies Plaintiffs and Defendants’ Respective Motions for Summary Judgment on Infringement/Non-Infringement in Trademark Infringement Action and Grants-in-Part Defendants’ Motion with Respect to Actual Damages

Delaware Intellectual Property Litigation Blog

[and that] Plaintiff did no corrective advertising.” 2005) for courts to consider when deciding whether to grant disgorgement damages in a trademark infringement action. Thus, the Court granted the motion with respect to actual damages. Renosky , 399 F.3d 3d 168, 175 (3d Cir.

article thumbnail

A Bigger Exception to the Rule? Attorneys’ Fee Awards in Trademark Cases

Shades of Gray

10] It concluded that a case under the Lanham Act is “exceptional” if the losing party was the plaintiff and was guilty of abuse of process in suing, or if the losing party was the defendant and had no defense yet persisted in the trademark infringement or false advertising for which it was being sued, in order to impose costs on its opponent. [11].

article thumbnail

survey + D's own website plausibly show materiality of presence of even small amounts of phthalates

43(B)log

Plaintiffs filed this complaint in federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, They alleged violations of multiple state consumer fraud and deceptive business practice laws; unjust enrichment; and breach of warranty. And “The Taste You Love” and “Gooey, Cheesy Goodness” were “textbook puffery.”

article thumbnail

1-800 Contacts Loses YET ANOTHER Trademark Lawsuit Over Competitive Keyword Ads–1-800 Contacts v. Warby Parker

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

1-800 Contacts first appeared on this blog on February 9, 2005, my second day of blogging. This is the correct way to analyze the mark similarity factor in competitive keyword advertising cases, though many courts have not taken this approach. 17 years later, I’m still blogging their ignoble trademark lawsuits. WhenU (2d Cir.

Trademark 107