Remove 2011 Remove Advertising Remove False Advertising
article thumbnail

Disgorgement in a noncomparative false advertising case: doctrinal drift?

43(B)log

This allowed McCormick to advertise what seemed like an attractive lower price and charge more. Thus, for disgorgement of profits, a plaintiff need only show the defendant’s “sales of the allegedly falsely advertised products,” after which the burden shifts to the defendant to prove “any costs or deductions.” Edriver Inc.,

article thumbnail

no disgorgement/fees in false advertising case even after Romag remand

43(B)log

Despite Romag , the court declines to award disgorgement or fees in this false advertising case. A jury found that Harbor Breeze proved all elements of liability for false advertising but awarded $0 in damages and profits. And they used the phrase “Feel the Harbor Breezes” in a pay-per-click advertisement on Google.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

False advertising-based antitrust claims against Facebook survive motion to dismiss

43(B)log

14, 2022) Once in a blue moon, a false advertising-based antitrust claim survives a motion to dismiss in a circuit that imposes a list of excessive requirements on such claims. Consumers and advertisers adequately alleged that Facebook has monopoly power in social network/social media (consumers) and social advertising markets.

article thumbnail

Second Circuit Tells Trademark Owners to Stop Suing Over Competitive Keyword Advertising–1-800 Contacts v. Warby Parker

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Fifteen years ago, courts generally avoided categorical pronouncements about the legitimacy of competitive keyword advertising. The message from the Second Circuit is plain: stop bringing competitive keyword advertising cases. This ruling doesn’t address the scenario where the advertiser’s ad copy references the trademark.

article thumbnail

Google’s Search Disambiguation Doesn’t Create Initial Interest Confusion–Aliign v. lululemon

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Aliign “is an event, lifestyle, and apparel company” allegedly with a first trademark use in 2011. More Posts About Keyword Advertising. Ohio Bans Competitive Keyword Advertising by Lawyers. 1-800 Contacts. * Another Failed Trademark Suit Over Competitive Keyword Advertising–JIVE v. Google cases. Greenberg v.

article thumbnail

Gerber's Good Start troubles continue

43(B)log

2) A print magazine advertisement described GSG as the “1st Formula with FDA qualified health claim.” (3) He would further opine that “there is a significant and substantial body of scientific evidence to support the representations in the Challenged Advertisements.” I’m not clear how a reasonable jury could find otherwise.)

article thumbnail

Court Denies Injunction in Competitive Keyword Ad Lawsuit–Nursing CE Central v. Colibri

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This is a competitive keyword advertising lawsuit. This is fine, but it deviates from courts’ efforts over the years to come up with multi-factor variations specific to keyword advertising. ” But the advertiser was engaging in comparative advertising, which I think also strongly serves the public interest.