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 Lanham Act falseadvertising claim survived. Lexmark says that “to come within the zone of interests in a suit for falseadvertising under § 1125(a), a plaintiff must allege an injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales.” But see The Knit With v. Knitting Fever, Inc., App'x 27 (3d Cir.
The Watkins expert calculated Watkins’s lost profits during the Walmart test; the profits Watkins would have realized between 2015 and 2020 if the test had been successful and Walmart had expanded the distribution of Watkins’s black pepper to 3,000 stores; and McCormick’s profits from its reduced-volume tins. The court disagreed.
2015), held as a matter of law that “[b]ecause Amazon’s search results page clearly labels the name and manufacturer of each product offered for sale and even includes photographs of the items, no reasonably prudent consumer accustomed to shopping online would likely be confused as to the source of the products.” Amazon.com, Inc.,
pictures of not-good plywood from case Plaintiffs alleged both direct and contributory falseadvertising. Defendants challenged whether plaintiffs identified any false or misleading statements by defendants. In Baldino’s Lock & Key Serv., Google, Inc., App’x 81 (4th Cir.
From 2015 to 2020, ASHI featured the following slogan on its website below its organizational logo: “American Society of Home Inspectors. They offer memberships to home inspectors, who typically inspect homes prior to home sales; they are currently the only two national bodies of this type.
Thanks to its patents, Amgen enjoyed a temporary exclusivity period for pegfilgrastim injections until 2015. Injury: Damages and disgorgement under the Lanham Act require injury (for falseadvertising, not trademark infringement, despite the same statutory language covering both; no, I am not going to stop pointing this out any time soon).
15, 2023) Simpson sued its competitor MiTek for using Simpson part numbers for structural connectors/fasteners for use in the construction industry in its catalogs/other promotional material; the court here, after a nonjury trial before the magistrate judge, rather comprehensively rejects its falseadvertising, trademark, and copyright claims. (It
Safelite allegedly falselyadvertised that (1) “if damage spreads beyond the size of a dollar bill, a replacement will be necessary”; (2) “when a chip is smaller than a dollar bill, it can usually be repaired without replacing the windshield.” can be safe and is viable.” Were plaintiffs’ injuries proximately caused by Safelite?
On November 7 th , Conde Nast sued Drake and 21 Savage for $4 million for falseadvertising and infringing Vogue’s trademarks. 2015: [link]. The court issued a preliminary injunction and the duo agreed to no longer use Vogue’s marks in connection with the album. Metaverse and NFT Filings Decrease. 2020: [link]. 2019: [link].
JC Penny, for example, has been hit with a class action lawsuit in the Southern District of California over its alleged advertising practice of using “false reference pricing.” Carranza claims that JC Penny falselyadvertises its products on its e-commerce website by listing a high reference price and the corresponding sale price.
2015) “in this circuit, a reverse passing off claim requires the alteration of a product and a subsequent sale.” Falseadvertising: Meishe pointed to statements defendants made in their copyright notice at tiktok.com, in the ByteDance Code of Conduct, in TikTok’s Intellectual Property Policy, and in TikTok’s terms of service.
Bimbo sells Grandma Sycamore’s Home-Maid Bread; it sued defendants, who include the baker who developed the Grandma Sycamore’s recipe, for trade secret misappropriation, trade dress infringement, and falseadvertising when it sold a comparable bread product, Grandma Emilie’s, with the tagline “Fresh.
WPI counterclaimed against Restellini and third-party Institut Restellini SAS – Documentation Centre alleging copyright infringement and falseadvertising. In 2015, the Catalogue Raisonné Amedeo Modigliani is henceforth transferred to Institut Restellini, being taken up with new methods, even more modern and scientifically extensive.
JC Penny, for example, has been hit with a class action lawsuit in the Southern District of California over its alleged advertising practice of using “false reference pricing.” Carranza claims that JC Penny falselyadvertises its products on its e-commerce website by listing a high reference price and the corresponding sale price.
A jury found the VSL parties liable for falseadvertising and unjust enrichment, basically for advertising that the formula was still the same, and awarded over $17 million in damages. Now De Simone’s entities compete with Alfasigma. Defendants argued that, under In re GNC Corp., 3d 505 (4th Cir. The district court disagreed.
So the fact that J-B Weld had low sales in 2015 is not an excuse for delaying, but rather a reason why Illinois Tool should have acted then. Falseadvertising claims as to “Made in USA”: First, J-B Weld argued that Illinois Tool lacked standing because it didn’t advertise its own products as being “Made in USA.”
But Nestlé pointed to no evidence that plaintiffs knew about the controversy before 2015, creating a genuine dispute about what they knew or should have known. Nestlé then argued that, because this controversy has been in the news since 2003, the plaintiffs have been on “inquiry notice” of their claims for years.
ICC develops model building codes and standards; it sued a competitor, UpCodes, for falseadvertising (Lanham Act, NY GBL, and common law unfair competition). A plaintiff cannot state a falseadvertising claim based on such a statement because, by definition, it cannot be proven false. UpCodes Inc., 4th - (2d Cir.
In 2015, it extended the “Align” mark to yoga apparel, which has generated $1B in sales. McNeil. * Three Keyword Advertising Decisions in a Week, and the Trademark Owners Lost Them All. * Competitor Gets Pyrrhic Victory in FalseAdvertising Suit Over Search Ads–Harbor Breeze v. Reyes & Adler v.
They are: the Unfair Competition Law (UCL); the FalseAdvertising Law (FAL); and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). While they often cover the same conduct in falseadvertising cases and are cumulative of each other, they have differences. 2015) (cleaned up). 2015) (cleaned up). Google, Inc.,
The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint didn’t allege that defendants had made false representations about the character or quality of the garments that plaintiff bought, which the district court understood to be essential under the state supreme court’s decision in Pearson v. 3d 3 (2015).
23, 2020) MFSA brought trademark dilution and falseadvertising claims against Netflix for its portrayal in the film “The Laundromat.” Libel/false light claims aren’t addressed in this decision; see below.) Rogers governed the falseadvertising claim. CV 19-9330-CBM-AS(x) (C.D. It’s about money laundering.)
It recognized that a famous personality has the right to control where and how their identity is used, and further stated that publicity rights move much beyond the legal limits of falseadvertising. Building onto this development, in 2015, the Madras High Court in Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v.
January 6, 2015. 271 , Trademark Infringement, Trademark Counterfeiting, and Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, and FalseAdvertising, under 15 U.S.C. §§ 114 and 1125(a). Registration Date. OPTISELECT. May 16, 2017. September 14, 2004. April 29, 2008. April 9, 2019.
In 2015, the crown mark was registered. Meanwhile, Rex Exchange, founded in 2015, offers an online platform for homeowners and homebuyers to transact the sale of single-family homes. Section 43(a) reaches more broadly; the court here applies Lexmark to both falseadvertising and trademark claims.
program, but not from its less-competitive EdD program (which was offered online after 2015). As Plaintiffs note, if the law were otherwise, “any business that submits false information to get a certification. 2U argued that, since it didn’t knowingly provide false data, this reasoning didn’t apply to it.
2015), by contrast, the defendant sent identical emails to each of the plaintiff’s 22 customers to inform them that defendant would be taking over plaintiff’s responsibilities. In Grubbs v. Sheakley Grp., 3d 785 (6th Cir. Ten out of 500 customers, at varying times with varying messages, just isn’t enough.
26, 2024) Defendant, d/b/a Wonderland, operated an adult entertainment club and was one of the many such sued by various models for using their images in advertising without their consent from 2015 to 2019.
According to Plaintiffs, “[a]s of 2015, an estimated 7.3 And indeed, Defendants’ products are a specialty item targeted to a class of informed consumers to aid in their attempts to become pregnant. Many buyers of ovulation test kits have had trouble getting pregnant in the past, and as such, seek help from various sources.
The four images in dispute were posted on defendants Facebook page between August, 2013, and November, 2015. 30, 2024) The caption seems to be a typo, but its one of the many right of publicity etc. cases by models against adult clubs that used their images in online ads. The defendant here gets summary judgment on laches.
Neurelis received orphan drug designation from the FDA for its Valtoco for management of ARS in 2015. But Aquestive’s petitioning activity was protected conduct under the anti-SLAPP statute, and Neurelis didn’t show a likelihood of prevailing on the merits on that, including the malicious prosecution claim in its entirety.
Between 2015-2019, its website identified 14 patents as “protect[ed]” by the logo, though in 2019 it modified the site to include a table purporting to demonstrate which of ThermoLife’s patents were practiced by ThermoLife’s licensees. We are the only legitimate source for patented and licensed amino acid nitrates.
In 2015, FDA issued a warning letter to Kind about its “healthy and tasty” claims, stating that the language was an “implied nutrient content claim” and that certain KIND products did not meet the FDA’s saturated fat content requirements necessary to describe food as “healthy.”
In addition, the jury reasonably (if just barely) could have found that Core Health began to manufacture Max Racks after the agreement expired in November 2015.” Payment of the profits on those units reduced Core’s monetary liability, but not the violation. “In But the evidence of this was “relatively insubstantial.”
Based on the complaint, a 43(a)(1)(B) falseadvertising cause is a bit of an uphill battle. Are the reports advertisements? Radiance v NAACP, 1415-68 (4th Cir 2015). Note: these are California state claims so I’ll say I’m puzzled and leave it at that. As an aside, there is no Lanham Act 43(a) cause.
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.
25, 2024) This interesting lawsuit relies on Targets curatorial reputation for the falseadvertising claim. 2015), rejected the claim that Alabamas statutory ban on class action formation under the ADPTA implicated any substantive right (against deceptive conduct) as a matter of federal law. Target Corp., Allstate Insurance Co.,
Sex toys don’t seem to have been added until 2015. Herman Miller brings claims of unfair competition, false association, falseadvertising, right of publicity, TM rights including dilution, claiming designer’s name, model names, and shape of the design. Porn/adult film, sex therapy, and nudist resorts also missing.
Healthvana sued in May 2020 for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and falseadvertising in violation of both federal and state law, as well for cybersquatting under ACPA. Several hundred thousand bottles of hand sanitizer, however, had already been produced with the older, ‘Healthvana’ label. Telebrands won summary judgment.
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