Remove 2006 Remove Advertising Remove False Advertising Remove Trademark
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.

article thumbnail

TIL: “Texas Tamale” Is an Enforceable Trademark–Texas Tamale v. CPUSA2

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This case hit my alerts because of its discussion about keyword advertising, but first, I have to digest how the court got there. In an April 2023 summary judgment ruling , the plaintiff established that it “possesses the legally protectable, incontestable trademarks TEXAS TAMALE and TEXAS TAMALE COMPANY.” ” Say what?

Trademark 100
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

calling an accepted Rule 68 offer a judgment of infringement could be defamatory

43(B)log

11, 2024) I have a long-running interest in Rule 68 offers of judgment, and this case involves an interaction with false advertising law! In 2006, Crocs sued now-plaintiff Double Diamond and Dawgs, its affiliate. Crocs, Inc., 2024 WL 1051951No. 23-cv-01790-PAB-KAS (D. The parties compete in the shoe market.

article thumbnail

Don’t call a Rule 68 judgment in an infringement case an infringement judgment

LexBlog IP

Here, Crocs sued defendants in 2006. Defendant Diamond Distribution then sued Crocs for defamation, false advertising, and related state torts. The holding, at 12(b)(6); The Court finds that the complaint plausibly establishes that the press release contains materially false statements. Crocs moved to dismiss.

article thumbnail

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

Shades of Gray

Traditionally, attorneys’ fees were notoriously difficult for a prevailing party to recover in a trademark action. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. , [1] relaxed the applicable standard in construing the Patent Act’s identical fee-shifting provision and will likely result in a lower bar to the recovery of fees in trademark disputes.

article thumbnail

False endorsement remains broader than many state ROP laws

43(B)log

American Girl applied for trademarks on a space-themed doll named Luciana Vega, which it began marketing in 2018 as its “Girl of the Year” doll. American Girl argued independent creation, which seems both plausible and not helpful to a trademark claim. Not to mention that “dilution” is not the same thing as false endorsement!

Law 57
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. Patent & Trademark Office. He received his J.D.