Remove 2011 Remove Advertising Remove Marketing
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

Who’s Got The Case? Unfair Competition Suit Between Catalyst Medium Four Inc. (Smartish) and Scooch, LLC

Indiana Intellectual Property Law

The lawsuit argues that Scooch is trying to take advantage of Smartish’s years of innovation and marketing efforts by selling cases with similar designs and packaging. According to the Complaint, Smartish, based in Austin, Texas , has been designing and selling mobile phone cases since 2011.

Designs 52
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

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. If they really wanted to build their business, they could have invested that money into marketing instead of legal fees. More Posts About Keyword Advertising. Ohio Bans Competitive Keyword Advertising by Lawyers.

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

Manu Bhaker’s Olympics Victory: Do Brands Violate Publicity Rights by Putting out Congratulatory Posts?

SpicyIP

These various brands have posted laudatory posts congratulating her for this achievement, while at the same time utilizing her image and Olympic win for their own commercial own use by using it in the form of an advertisement. In 2011, in the landmark case of Titan Industries Ltd. This practice is not uncommon in Indian sports.

Branding 105
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. ” Marketing channel. Note: if it’s not obvious, “CE” is an abbreviation for “continuing education.”

article thumbnail

TTABlog Test: Is PISSTERINE Confusable with LISTERINE for Mouthwash?

The TTABlog

As to commercial strength, the LISTERINE product has been marketed continuously since 1879. J & J's advertising and sales figures were "quite impressive." Maher , 100 USPQ2d 1018, 1023 (TTAB 2011). The Board found the mark to be arbitrary, inherently distinctive, and conceptually strong. Nike, Inc.

Fair Use 143