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
Dawgs’ (“Dawgs”) counterclaim for falseadvertising under the Lanham Act. In 2016, Dawgs added new asserted counterclaims against Crocs, including a claim for falseadvertising under the Lanham Act. Crocs largely prevailed in those actions. See Zenith Elecs. Exzec, Inc. , 3d 1340 (Fed.
As far as the Court can tell, … PIRG does no work addressing false or misleading labeling for bed sheets, textiles more generally, or even falseadvertising as a category. So what was the problem? The cy pres doctrine simply allows for a distribution that achieves those benefits indirectly.”
7, 2022) The court upheld a contempt finding based on an underlying falseadvertising claim. The jury “awarded ExeGi $15 million in damages after Alfasigma falselyadvertised VSL#3 by referencing studies done on the De Simone Formulation,” and the district court found an intent to cause confusion. De Simone v.
InterNACHI argued that ASHI’s tagline constituted Lanham Act falseadvertising because it portrays ASHI’s entire membership as being educated, tested, verified, and certified, even though its membership includes so-called “novice” inspectors who have yet to complete training or become certified.
Shingle Savers counterclaimed, alleging, among other things, falseadvertising under the Lanham Act and violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Lanham Act/ODTPA claims: First, the court declined to hold that Rule 9(b) applied to Lanham Act falseadvertising claims, which don’t require fraud.
I’m only going to discuss the false association/falseadvertising bits; as to the latter, state law provides more protection than federal because of the “commercial advertising or promotion” requirement for Lanham Act falseadvertising. The false association/coordinate state law claims survived.
On November 7 th , Conde Nast sued Drake and 21 Savage for $4 million for falseadvertising and infringing Vogue’s trademarks. 2016: [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].
He paid money to get extra visibility for his dating profile and claims he got poor results, so he sued Bumble for falseadvertising. Alkutkar joined Bumble in 2016. Bumble successfully redirects the case to arbitration based on its TOS. In January 2021, Bumble sought to add an arbitration clause to its TOS.
Ultra Bond alleged that Safelite violated the Lanham Act by falselyadvertising that windshield cracks longer than six inches could not be safely repaired and instead required replacement of the entire windshield. Safelite is the VGRR market leader: in 2016, it had 35.4% of the market; its closest competitor had just 3%.
Cape, PLC, but shifted in 2016 to Cape Law Firm, PLC. CLP allegedly launched a Google advertising campaign using the mark CAPE LAW FIRM. Right of publicity: Cape seems like a generic word that wouldnt itself violate the right of publicity even if there were a successful trademark/falseadvertising claim.
In 2016, it even commissioned a survey asking customers whether they preferred “J-B Weld Ultimate Black” or Illinois Tool’s “Permatex Ultra Black.” If a defendant slowly comes more directly into competition with the plaintiff, that can be progressive encroachment, but here direct competition existed since at least early 2016.
Netaifm alleged that defendants engaged in anticompetitive market behavior when the Jain entities acquired majority shares of two local design firms, which connect manufacturers to growers, and alleged falseadvertising. Jain had approximately $25 million in Central Valley sales in 2016. Jain is Netafim’s largest competitor.
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. The court of appeals agreed, but noted that (2) was overbroad for that objective.
In 2016, the Latinfood website contained the phrase “We have products from” followed by marks of imported brands, among which was an image of Industria’s Zenú mark. Advertisements made for Latinfood Zenú products used the phrase “una deliciosa tradición,” which translates to “a delicious tradition.” Summary judgment for Latinfood.
The green “upgrade now” button plays a key role in the court’s latest analysis: Enigma sued Malwarebytes for its classifications in 2016, back when Obama was still president. After remand, the case went back to the Ninth Circuit, which held that anti-threat classifications might be Lanham Act falseadvertising.
In 2016, Malwarebytes classified Enigma’s software as “malicious,” a “threat,” and a “potentially unwanted program” (or PUP), because the programs allegedly were “scareware.” This case involves two anti-threat software vendors, Enigma and Malwarebytes.
Enigma sued its competitor Malwarebytes for Lanham Act falseadvertising and NY business torts for designating its products as “malicious,” “threats,” and “potentially unwanted programs” (PUPs).
Both plaintiffs alleged that they purchased tickets and attended at least one NFL game at MetLife Stadium in 2021, which they would not have done but for defendants’ falseadvertising. One plaintiff alleged that she was unaware that the Giants have played in New Jersey since 1976, and the Jets since 1984.
For the purposes of falseadvertising claims, the issue that the parties must address is whether there are material differences between the products, not why any such differences may exist. but without a resultant detectable difference in the product itself.
On October 24, 2016, the Ninth Circuit joined the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Circuits in extending Octane ’s holding to a trademark fee application. [2]. The Third Circuit was the first to apply Octane in a trademark action, followed by several others, including, most recently, the Ninth Circuit on October 24, 2016. 24, 2016). [3]
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. Princeton Excess & Surplus Lines Ins. Houston, Inc., 4th 274 (5th Cir. 2023); but see Princeton Express v. 3d 1252, 1258 (S.D.
23, 2022) Manufacturers lose an opportunity to create a circuit split on whether overpaying for a product that generally has a defect, which defect did not manifest for the class plaintiffs but plausibly reduced the value of the product, provides standing for a falseadvertising monetary relief claim. 330 (2016), and TransUnion.”
The 2016 label references the “coastal hills” of Oregon as an “ideal region to grow” this type of wine. Marketing materials related to the 2016 version designate the same three valleys as “Regions of Origin,” and describes them as “premiere growing regions along Oregon’s coast.” It contains the phrase “Purely Oregon, Always Coastal.”
Natera knew, but did not disclose, that Panorama has a high rate of false positives for microdeletion-related and other rare conditions. In 2016, Natera acknowledged the results of a published study which found that Panorama had an 18% PPV for DiGeorge syndrome, a rare genetic condition.
The groups didn’t learn of Sanderson’s alleged misrepresentations until August 1, 2016, so resources expended before that date weren’t pertinent. Diversion of resources has been found when organizations “expended additional resources that they would not otherwise have expended, and in ways that they would not have expended them.”
Second, Unilever’s evidence that “from 2016 to 2022, there were zero complaints from California consumers concerning the empty space in the products at issue” was “highly relevant,” and it wasn’t hard to discover given that all four plaintiffs became suspicious because Unilever’s sticks seemed top-heavy.
App’x at 19 (explaining that “plaintiffs must do more than plausibly allege that a ‘label might conceivably be misunderstood by some few consumers,’ ” but instead “must plausibly allege ‘that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled’ ” (quoting Ebner v.
In 2016, the CDC and the FDA began investigating reported instances of illnesses related to Listeria and soon determined that the strains were “closely related to strains” of Listeria detected in vegetables processed at CRF’s facility.
Petterson brought claims under California’s UCL and FAL and moved to certify a class of “All persons in California who purchased a carton of cigarettes from a Circle K store in California and did not receive an advertised multi-pack discount from December 4, 2016 to the present.” numerosity).
2016), involved an order page like this: Amazon ad Whether Amazon provided sufficient notice, the Second Circuit held, could not be resolved as a matter of law. Id Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 3d 220 (2d Cir. The key “message itself—‘By placing your order, you agree to Amazon.com’s.
Meanwhile, Aquestive’s Libervant obtained orphan drug designation in 2016. It then received fast strack designation, which allowed it priority review, and filed an NDA for Valtoco in 2018; this was pending at the time of the operative complaint. The parties discussed potential partnership in 2017 and 2018, but the discussions didn’t go well.
Max Rack argued that other courts have presumed actual confusion (and shifted the burden to a defendant to disprove it) when the defendant has intentionally deceived the public by using a deceptive mark or comparative falseadvertising. Thus, the jury’s award could have rested on the ex-franchisee theory.
But the 2016 edition of the Tanbook allegedly failed to include legislative amendments to statutes contained within the text even though those amendments had taken place years, even a decade, earlier.
Ford argued that plaintiffs who took delivery after February 2016 could not reasonably claim to be misled “because of information and rumors available on Internet forums that the cars at issue could not do track days.
2016) (Florida) (holding that plaintiffs “need not show actual reliance on the representation or omission at issue,” even when causation is an element). The parties focused on reliance, so the majority did as well, dismissing the dissent’s claim that reliance and causation are inherently intertwined as inconsistent with governing state law.
In 2016, the FDA removed the statement about worse clinical outcomes from the boxed warning and just warned about “diminished antiplatelet effect.” Research and debate continued about the causes of poor response.
This hidden financial agreement plausibly helped increase the sale of both Usana’s products and sales of the Guide itself—to Usana’s distributors. “ The parties here had a clear financial arrangement designed to influence consumers to buy products from a third-party in which Defendants had a direct financial stake.” USA, LLC v. Bleeping Comput.
I also don’t think used, grey market, expired/near expired, repackaged goods, mishandled goods are infringing or counterfeit; the problem if any is that they’re falselyadvertised. NYU Press, 2016). Fagundes wrote follow-up article suggesting that system was breaking down.
14, 2022) Once in a blue moon, a falseadvertising-based antitrust claim survives a motion to dismiss in a circuit that imposes a list of excessive requirements on such claims. Consumers and advertisers adequately alleged that Facebook has monopoly power in social network/social media (consumers) and social advertising markets.
Courts have rejected Section 230 defenses against claims for falseadvertising, deceptive trade practices, and tortious interference. 2016); Nat’l Numismatic Certification, LLC v. This opinion tacks on more ideas: falseadvertising, deceptive trade practices, tortious interference, and “claims sounding in contract or tort.”
Here’s an example: Competitive keyword advertising by law firms has been a source of trouble for years. I wrote a whole paper just about that in 2016–we’re still discussing it 8 years later. Bye, Goff * Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. LoanStreet v.
Moose Knuckles parka, 2016, lacked qualifying statement (made with Canadian and imported components); settled for $750,000 donation. made in Canada with imported parts). Product of Canada: like made in Canada, but all or virtually all of the total direct costs (98%) must be Canadian.
The judgement was passed collectively in an appeal against 4 orders (two impugning the 2016 Ericsson v. Controller General of Patents and Designs (passed on September 15), the Court clarified that the 2016 CRI Guidelines’ requirement of assessing the CRI in conjunction with novel hardware has now been removed from the 2017 CRI Guidelines.
3:15-cv-1204-GPC-WVG, 2016 WL 3348818 (S.D. June 16, 2016); Boris v. But a price is not a juxtaposition with a putative former/regular price as evidenced by the fact that legislatures around the country bar specifically falseadvertising relating to sales. Millercoors LLC, No. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 3d 1163 (C.D.
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