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
CV 09-02235 ABC PLAX, 2009 WL 8714439, at *1 (C.D. June 23, 2009), found that the use of “original” to describe a board game was actionable because it was about first physical manufacture, not creation of the idea. Zobmondo Ent. Imagination Int’l Corp., The court here disagreed.
17, 2023) Super-interesting holding that, while there’s no patent field preemption against bringing false patent marking claims under the Lanham Act, Dastar (as expansively interpreted to cover falseadvertising claims) does preclude such claims, possibly only because of party argument. Dismissed with leave to amend.
Same thing with the Lori Drew prosecution from 2009). However, if you’re an old-timer like me, you’ll recognize how this exact argument was tried–and failed–in Noah v. AOL from 2003, a case I still include in my Internet Law casebook.
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.” Hippo Golf Co.,
This was the first of USC Rossier’s online degree programs and went live in June 2009; 2U received an undisclosed percentage of the tuition revenue. From the 2009 rankings to the 2010 rankings, USC Rossier’s reported acceptance rate dropped 40 percentage points (from 50.7% to 10.5%), and its ranking rose 16 places (from #38 to #22).
Lanham Act falseadvertising: The theory was that Meta misrepresented “the creation and ownership” of Logan’s photos. Dastar doesn’t clearly bar falseadvertising §43(a)(1)(B) claims in general, but it does bar the claim as pled here: “a copyright claim repackaged under a trademark statute.” 3d 1137 (9th Cir.
One of the early high-profile incidents of greenwashing is the infamous ‘Dieselgate’ of 2009 in which Volkswagen launched “clean diesel” cars just by installing a software to evade emission tests, which was later busted by the United States, Environmental Protection Agency.
were valid and infringed, but the latter wasn’t counterfeited; SMRI’s dilution victory was vacated, but not its victories on deceptive trade practices, ACPA, falseadvertising, and unfair competition. It was thus barred from equitable relief for its trademark infringement, falseadvertising, and state deceptive trade practices claims.
Plaintiffs sued for falseadvertising and false endorsement under the Lanham Act, violation of their right to publicity, deceptive trade practices under New York GBL Section 349, and defamation. 2021), which considered all these claims except for falseadvertising. The court was guided by Electra v. 3d 233 (2d Cir.
Premier sold Joint Juice for treating/preventing joint pain; a jury found it liable to a consumer class for falseadvertising under NY law; and the district court awarded statutory damages to the class, but cut them by over 90%. Thus, the district court did not err by declining to instruct the jury on the safe harbor provision.
according to their website, was formed by Monte McClung in 2009 after a 20 year Career at Gema. 271 , Trademark Infringement, Trademark Counterfeiting, and Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, and FalseAdvertising, under 15 U.S.C. §§ 114 and 1125(a). The Defendant, First in Finishing, Inc.,
No decision I have found fully addresses what standing limits there are on Article I courts; the Court of Federal Claims applies Art. III standing requirements despite being an Article I court, e.g., Weeks Marine, Inc. United States, 575 F.3d 3d 1352, 1359 (Fed. Apparently there is a dispute over whether Art. III applies in bankruptcy court.)
ThermoLife’s website also advertises its “Patented Nitrate Technology.” (DE But a factfinder could conclude that “the challenged advertising statements are material in that the statements involve inherent qualities or characteristics of the CRTN-3 product that could influence a consumer’s decision to purchase the product.”
The district court certified a class of those who purchased the coffeemaker at a New Mexico Wal-Mart store from 2009 to 2013, approximately 40,600 members. The coffeemaker evidently proved unsatisfactory, and the Pumas sued.
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. with highest honors from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 2009.
The state alleged that Plavix was less effective in patients who had certain liver-enzyme mutations, and that defendants knew this fact years before 2009, when the FDA updated Plavix’s label with information about the issue. In 2009, a BMS employee wrote: [I]t looks like we are into stalling some more.
Defendants retained and produced only California calls, but, based on the testimony in the case, the court concluded that the total number of misleading calls placed by defendants from March 2009 through April 2020 was 1,243,099.
2021) Plaintiffs/Debtors argued, and the court held in relevant part, that defendants (Charter) breached the automatic stay by a literally false and intentionally misleading advertising campaign to induce the Debtors’ customers to terminate their agreements with the Debtors by telling them that bankruptcy risked impairment of their service.
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