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
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 falseadvertising claim survived.
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.
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 falseadvertising.
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.
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?
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.
Plaintiff alleged that the potential purchasing public was homeowners under contract with it in Lincoln and Deschutes Counties, because that was where the calls with allegedly false claims went, but didn’t explain why that was the market and not also two other counties where plaintiff alleged similar homes were located. In Grubbs v.
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.
Currently, Bhaker is managed by iOS Sports & Entertainment, who released a statement calling such unauthorized advertising as “moment marketing free of cost,” and issued a legal notice to the above brands to take such commercials down, contending that such advertisements violated their ownership of Bhaker’s personality rights.
22, 2021) The parties compete in the market for “chemical bonding products—like epoxies, adhesives, threadlockers, gasket makers, and silicone sealants—that someone might buy at a hardware store to fix their car or for other mechanical projects.” Change over time in likelihood of confusion, not change over time in market share, is the key.
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).
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). Superior Court, 9 Cal.5th
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. Intent was neutral.
23, 2024) Plaintiffs alleged that defendants conspired to inflate the US News ranking of USC Rossier School of Education by submitting inaccurate or incomplete data to US News and market the resulting ranking to the public. program, but not from its less-competitive EdD program (which was offered online after 2015).
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. And the exclusion also withdrew coverage for all related forms of marketing. about your goods, products or services”).
According to Plaintiffs, “[a]s of 2015, an estimated 7.3 This does not seem to me—as someone who has indeed been in the general market for this type of product—to be a description of reasonable consumers of specialized medical services, who tend to outsource a lot of the details to presumed experts.
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. This evidence of lost market share was sufficient to get to a factfinder.
Neurelis received orphan drug designation from the FDA for its Valtoco for management of ARS in 2015. The audience was in a position to “influence” a “potential buyer” of Libervant by investing in Aquestive to help ensure that company brought Libervant to market before other competing drugs, like Valtoco.
For example, there was evidence that “Core Health waited until over a month after the agreement’s expiration to update its website and other marketing materials.” Freedom Rack remains the only machine on the market like the Max Rack; the plaintiff has not licensed another producer. When they did try, they missed some references.
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. So too with its marketing communications to doctors and patients.
It also, allegedly, obtained access to analytical tools from Brandwatch , a market intelligence consultant. asserting that CCDH’s reports were “baseless,” “false or misleading,” and not supported by proper research techniques. Are the reports advertisements?
25, 2024) This interesting lawsuit relies on Targets curatorial reputation for the falseadvertising claim. Given this broader Target marketing landscape, plaintiffs were entitled to more expansive inferences about reasonable consumers. [W]hile Target Corp., 3d -, 2024 WL 4287669, No. 23-CV-02668 (KMM/DJF) (D. 3d 1331 (11th Cir.
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. It’s now hard to sort through the market to get a good one.
Telebrands markets and sells “As Seen on TV” consumer household products via websites, phone numbers, and big box retailers. Telebrands made a pandemic-related effort to market and sell a hand sanitizer product, but retailers were historically reluctant to carry products associated with hemp, so it used “Healthvana” for its hand sanitizer.
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