Remove 2009 Remove Advertising Remove False Advertising Remove Licensing
article thumbnail

Dastar bars false marking claims brought under Lanham Act (dubitante)

43(B)log

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 false advertising claims) does preclude such claims, possibly only because of party argument. Dismissed with leave to amend.

article thumbnail

1202 and Lanham Act claims can't save lawsuit against embedding photos

43(B)log

Algthough Logan published the photos on Wikimedia under a Creative Commons license, he alleged that Meta stripped the photos of all identifying information and falsely identified itself as the owner by displaying its “copyright tag on the bottom of each Facebook user page,” breaching the license. 3d 1137 (9th Cir. 3d 1300 (Fed.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

YouTube Isn’t Liable for User Uploads of Animal Abuse Videos–Lady Freethinker v. YouTube

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

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.

article thumbnail

Dastar bars some claims about "patented" statements but related superiority statements are still at issue

43(B)log

ThermoLife’s website also advertises its “Patented Nitrate Technology.” (DE It states: If you are interested in making a dietary supplement with nitrates in it there is a very good chance your intended use or composition is covered by one or more of the 450 valid claims in our patent portfolio, so make sure to speak with us about a license.

Patent 59
article thumbnail

Models' false endorsement claims fail for want of recognition, bad survey

43(B)log

Plaintiffs sued for false advertising 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 false advertising. The court was guided by Electra v. 3d 233 (2d Cir.

article thumbnail

when is a trademark licensee's use of a TM deceptive to consumers?

43(B)log

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. They argued that B&D could grant a license and be protected as long as the owner exercised quality control. The coffeemaker evidently proved unsatisfactory, and the Pumas sued.

article thumbnail

Overreaching and delay lead to defeat of TM owner's claims

43(B)log

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, false advertising, and unfair competition. It also stopped using “Officially Licensed Sturgis,” “Licensed Sturgis,” and “Authentic Sturgis.” SMRI had unclean hands.