Remove 2015 Remove False Advertising Remove Marketing
article thumbnail

Retailer has standing to assert Lanham Act false advertising claims against its own supplier

43(B)log

In summer 2020, AHBP began negotiating with the Lynd defendants for the exclusive license to market and sell a surface disinfectant/cleaner known as “Bioprotect 500” in Argentina. Lynd advertised the Product as effective against the coronavirus. the Lanham Act false advertising claim survived.

article thumbnail

Defendant's belief its ads were effective is evidence of injury

43(B)log

Thanks to its patents, Amgen enjoyed a temporary exclusivity period for pegfilgrastim injections until 2015. The first pegfilgrastim biosimilar hit the market in November 2018, and would ultimately be followed by five others, including Sandoz’s Ziextenzo in November 2019. Sandoz Inc. 2023 WL 4681569 , No. 2:22-cv-05326-RGK-MARx (C.D.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

two opinions send "false advertising of certification mark" claim to jury

43(B)log

The plaintiffs alleged that the stamps themselves were “a powerful form of advertising because they allow the Brazilian plywood companies to market their products as conforming to an important American safety standard.” pictures of not-good plywood from case Plaintiffs alleged both direct and contributory false advertising.

article thumbnail

10th circuit won't presume false advertising harm just from direct competition

43(B)log

From 2015 to 2020, ASHI featured the following slogan on its website below its organizational logo: “American Society of Home Inspectors. The court of appeals declined to presume harm just because the parties were each other’s sole competitor in the national home inspector market.

article thumbnail

Using dominant competitor's part names/numbers for comparison isn't false advertising, TM infringement, or (c) infringement

43(B)log

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 false advertising, trademark, and copyright claims. (It

article thumbnail

Cracks in the foundation: Laches and proximate cause defeat auto glass false advertising claim

43(B)log

Safelite allegedly falsely advertised 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?

article thumbnail

Google’s Search Disambiguation Doesn’t Create Initial Interest Confusion–Aliign v. lululemon

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

In 2015, it extended the “Align” mark to yoga apparel, which has generated $1B in sales. If they really wanted to build their business, they could have invested that money into marketing instead of legal fees. Consistent with that, Aliign is spending more marketing dollars to appeal this lawsuit to the Ninth Circuit.