Remove 2017 Remove False Advertising Remove Marketing
article thumbnail

two Zillow false advertising cases, divergent outcomes

43(B)log

2, 2021) Rex sued Zillow and the National Association of Realtors for antitrust and false advertising violations. Surprisingly, the antitrust claims survive, as do false advertising claims agains Zillow. C21-312 TSZ, 2021 WL 3930694 (W.D. NAR “is the nation’s largest trade association for real estate professionals.”

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.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

False patent marking claims survive even when Dastar bars false advertising claims based on "innovation"

43(B)log

30, 2024) (R&R) Recommendation: Dastar should block Qingdao’s Lanham Act false advertising counterclaims based on Lashify’s claim to be the originator of lash technology, but false patent marking counterclaims should survive. 1, 2017 to Apr. 11, 2023 (claiming that various products were “patented”).

article thumbnail

TM complainant fails to sink its teeth into unrelated false advertising claims

43(B)log

Unsurprisingly, the trademark claims survive a motion to dismiss, but associated false advertising claims don’t. VFB’s marks are visible to the public in many places, including on VFB’s website, in the public records of the USPTO, and in various national media due to VFB’s continuous marketing of its products.”

article thumbnail

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

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

We usually get ours at the local farmers market.] CV H-17-1068, 2017 WL 2957912, at *8 (S.D. July 11, 2017) (holding that “the mere purchase of AdWords alone, without directing a consumer to a potentially confusing web page, is not sufficient for a claim of trademark infringement,” citing Mary Kay, 601 F. ” Say what?

Trademark 129
article thumbnail

patent misrepresentations to prospective dealer could be false advertising under Dastar/Lexmark

43(B)log

Shingle Savers counterclaimed, alleging, among other things, false advertising under the Lanham Act and violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Moreover, the alleged misrepresentations concerned the nature of Roof Maxx’s own roofing Product and were presented in official marketing material and conversations.

article thumbnail

marketing may be material even to very expensive/complex business purchases

43(B)log

30, 2022) Pegasystems alleged that defendants, which compete with it in the business process management (BPM) software field, engaged in false advertising and commercial disparagement in an online report that portrayed Pegasystems unfavorably. Appian disseminated the report through its sales team, social media, and other marketing.