Remove 2011 Remove False Advertising Remove Trademark Law
article thumbnail

Top Trademark Trends of 2022

Erik K Pelton

On November 7 th , Conde Nast sued Drake and 21 Savage for $4 million for false advertising and infringing Vogue’s trademarks. Erik Pelton® has been making trademarks bloom since 1999 ® as the founder of Erik M. Pelton & Associates ®, a boutique trademark law firm in Falls Church, Virginia.

Trademark 130
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. McNeil. * Three Keyword Advertising Decisions in a Week, and the Trademark Owners Lost Them All. * Competitor Gets Pyrrhic Victory in False Advertising Suit Over Search Ads–Harbor Breeze v.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

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

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

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.

article thumbnail

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

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Brown Engstrand * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law v. Bye, Goff * Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. Allied Modular * Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute False Advertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet LoanStreet v. Reyes & Adler v.

article thumbnail

Think Keyword Metatags Are Dead? They Are (Except in Court)–Reflex v. Luxy

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The court starts its trademark analysis nostalgically: “Turn back the clock to the Internet’s nascent age—1999.” Netscape and 2011 Network Automation cases modified it. ” (How about this: let’s not). The court recounts the perennially problematic Brookfield case and how the 2004 Playboy v.