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
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.
Among other limits, the court refuses to enjoin the defendants’ keyword ad buys, though the restriction applies to trademark references in the ad copy: District courts in the Fifth Circuit have held that “in and of itself—using a competitor’s trademark as a Google AdWords or keyword does not constitute trademark infringement.”
1, 2024) NYU Langone sued Northwell for trade dress infringement, unfair competition and false designation of origin, and falseadvertising under the Lanham Act, as well as related claims under the New York GBL and New York common law. The court dismissed the complaint—the falseadvertising claims with prejudice.
OSD Audio then sued Outlaw under §512(f), and Outlaw counterclaimed for falseadvertising and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, copyright infringement, and trade libel. Lanham Act: The user manual did not constitute “commercial advertising or promotion.” Thus, Outlaw showed likely success on the merits of this claim.
In so ruling, the Court found that Defendants’ affirmative defenses of laches and acquiescence failed as a matter of law because (1) they were based on an alleged 2017 assignment of the EMERSON QUIET KOOL trademark from American Ductless AC Corp. A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.
The court found that Industria’s argument for falseadvertising “falls on the wrong side of the line between a false association claim and a falseadvertising claim. And the copying here could also lead to an inference of deception. Did intentional copying show intent to confuse?
Falseadvertising: Plaintiffs alleged that the following statements from Roup’s website bio were false or misleading: “I knew that there was something missing from the boutique fitness community, so I combined my passion for dance and love for fitness to create The Sculpt Society.
Plaintiffs contended that omissions and inaccuracies rendered the Tanbook of no value to its users and that, after receiving complaints, Matthew Bender included the previously omitted statutes and regulations in the 2017 edition, which, although published late in the calendar year, was sold to plaintiffs and other subscribers at full price.
Deliberate copying was irrelevant. In a Rogers case, intentional copying alone cannot justify an inference of copying with intent to confuse, even if that can occur in cases that don’t “implicate” the First Amendment. “[I]n 1744, 1757 (2017)…. Yet both artists won.” And the answer should be the same as well. Tam, 137 S.
Asst Controller of Patents and Designs , (passed on May 15) the Court meandered through the legislative history of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act and observed that there is a lack of clarity on the meaning of “technical effect” and “contribution” under the present 2017 CRI guidelines used by the Patent Office. HULM Entertainment v.
Falseadvertising and misleading representations: Dark patterns often involve misleading representations about products, services, or offers. These representations could include false claims about trademarked features, which could result in legal action for falseadvertising and trademark infringement.
months first action pendency in 2017. You can copy a Rembrandt and do a beautiful job but it’s not a Rembrandt.” 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.
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