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
The First Amendment has long coexisted with no-fault falseadvertising laws. Citing Dastar and Rogers ; noting in a footnote that Dastar suggested that Lanham Act falseadvertising claims might sometimes govern statements about artistic provenance without raising any First Amendment concern.] City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d
One example was the November release of the Her Loss album by artists Drake and 21 Savage which included a fake Vogue magazine cover as part of the album artwork, as well as a fake version of Vogue magazine. On November 7 th , Conde Nast sued Drake and 21 Savage for $4 million for falseadvertising and infringing Vogue’s trademarks.
28, 2022) Chanel sued What Goes Around Comes Around (WGACA), alleging trademark infringement, falseadvertising, false association/endorsement, and related NY GBL claims for deceptive/unfair trade practices and falseadvertising. WGACA, LLC, 2022 WL 902931, No. 2253 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.
Static Controls in 2012, a Lanham Act falseadvertising case, the Court gave us two more principles for interpreting section 43: a statutory cause of action extends only to plaintiffs whose interests “fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.” Tam and Brunetti, striking down various bars on registration.
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