Remove 2017 Remove Copying Remove False Advertising
article thumbnail

False advertising-based antitrust claims against Facebook survive motion to dismiss

43(B)log

14, 2022) Once in a blue moon, a false advertising-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.

article thumbnail

TIL: “Texas Tamale” Is an Enforceable Trademark–Texas Tamale v. CPUSA2

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

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.”

Trademark 129
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 hospitals can both be best, and use purple ads (for now at least)

43(B)log

1, 2024) NYU Langone sued Northwell for trade dress infringement, unfair competition and false designation of origin, and false advertising 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 false advertising claims with prejudice.

article thumbnail

user manuals aren't "commercial advertising or promotion" but do have thin copyright

43(B)log

OSD Audio then sued Outlaw under §512(f), and Outlaw counterclaimed for false advertising 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.

article thumbnail

Judge Stark Grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses of Laches, Acquiescence and Statute of Limitations in Trademark Infringement Action

Delaware Intellectual Property Litigation Blog

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.

article thumbnail

Inter American Convention allows claims that Lanham Act makes dubious after Abitron; but what about Article III?

43(B)log

The court found that Industria’s argument for false advertising “falls on the wrong side of the line between a false association claim and a false advertising claim. And the copying here could also lead to an inference of deception. Did intentional copying show intent to confuse?

article thumbnail

claims to fill a gap in the market are puffery

43(B)log

False advertising: 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.