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
Zuluaga claimed first use of Zenú in 2011; the predecessor company applied to register the mark in 2013, with specimens using actual images of Industria’s products (though Zuluaga claimed lack of knowledge either of Industria or the specimens filed on its behalf by a filing service). Did intentional copying show intent to confuse?
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. SMRI ultimately sent one C&D in August 2006, and filed suit in June 2011. Here the court considers acquiescence and laches.
14, 2022) Once in a blue moon, a falseadvertising-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.
This is fine, but it deviates from courts’ efforts over the years to come up with multi-factor variations specific to keyword advertising. For example, 9th Circuit courts used the “Internet trinity” factors in the 2000s, and then switched in 2011 to a unique four-factor test from the Network Automation. LoanStreet v.
Whatever legal ambiguity might have existed then has been decisively resolved, at least with respect to competitive keyword ads that don’t use the trademark in the ad copy. This ruling doesn’t address the scenario where the advertiser’s ad copy references the trademark. Google (4th Circuit). Actual Confusion.
The trial court found Ethicon committed 153,351 violations of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and 121,844 violations of the FalseAdvertising Law (FAL) and imposed a $1,250 civil penalty for each violation. It advised that complications were “rare,” but could have “serious consequences.”
There’s also a copyright claim for Luxy copying the plaintiff’s TOS/privacy policy. Netscape and 2011 Network Automation cases modified it. FTC. * New Jersey Attorney Ethics Opinion Blesses Competitive Keyword Advertising (…or Does It?). This is a topic I used as a sample exam idea in the 1990s).
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