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
2, 2021) Rex sued Zillow and the National Association of Realtors for antitrust and falseadvertising violations. Surprisingly, the antitrust claims survive, as do falseadvertising claims agains Zillow. C21-312 TSZ, 2021 WL 3930694 (W.D. NAR “is the nation’s largest trade association for real estate professionals.”
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 advertisingmarkets.
30, 2024) (R&R) Recommendation: Dastar should block Qingdao’s Lanham Act falseadvertising 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”).
Unsurprisingly, the trademark claims survive a motion to dismiss, but associated falseadvertising 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.”
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?
Shingle Savers counterclaimed, alleging, among other things, falseadvertising 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.
30, 2022) Pegasystems alleged that defendants, which compete with it in the business process management (BPM) software field, engaged in falseadvertising and commercial disparagement in an online report that portrayed Pegasystems unfavorably. Appian disseminated the report through its sales team, social media, and other marketing.
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.
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.
Portkey sued for unfair competition/reverse passing off, falseadvertising, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, as well as related state-law claims. Venkateswaran, 2024 WL 3487735, No. 23-CV-5074 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Maybe companies can resurrect noncompetes by prohibiting uses of their trademarks in former employees’ resumes!
28, 2022) Chanel sued What Goes Around Comes Around (WGACA), alleging trademark infringement, falseadvertising, false association/endorsement, and related NY GBL claims for deceptive/unfair trade practices and falseadvertising. Until 2017, it also used the hashtag #WGACACHANEL in its social media posts.
28, 2022) Outlaw lost its bid for a preliminary injunction enjoining Santos, aka OSD Audio, from selling products containing user manuals that allegedly infringed Outlaw’s copyright, falsely represented OSD Audio products’ specifications, and falsely represented that OSD Audio and Outlaw’s products are similar. Prager Univ.
But Industria does not advertise or sell its Zenú or Ranchera products in the United States and there are no market surveys specific to the United States for Zenú or Ranchera. In light of the size of the food market, that’s a bit hard to credit. In light of the size of the food market, that’s a bit hard to credit.
Princeton insured Wonderland from 2016-2018 (with a broad exclusion for defamation, invasion of privacy, and various forms of advertising injury in the second year called the Exhibitions and Related Marketing Exclusion), and agreed to defend the club but reserved the right to deny insurance coverage.
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. 2021) The parties compete in the micro-irrigation industry, which targets agricultural growers.
Plaid responded that PNC knew about this as early as 2017 and worked with Plaid to make it easier for PNC customers to connect to fintech apps. PNC sued for counterfeiting, infringement, and falseadvertising/unfair competition under federal and Pennsylvania law. Plaid’s messaging also encouraged PNC customers to change banks.”
17-CV-647, 2017 WL 3168525 (N.D. July 26, 2017), vacated and remanded, 742 F. Defendants relied on two cases rejecting similar theories, including one that was vacated by the Ninth Circuit in light of California cases more favorable to plaintiffs (Goldman v. Bayer AG, No. App’x 325 (9th Cir. 2018); and Howard v. Bayer Corp.,
of the respondents who were shown the test 2017 homepage and mission page believed that it communicated or implied that Elysium submitted an NDI to the FDA; and (4) a net percentage of 32.4% Damages experts: The court began with a statement that a Lanham Act [falseadvertising] plaintiff must prove causation to get damages.
The 2017 label also references the “coast” and includes a map of Oregon with leaves denoting the locations of the Willamette, Umpqua, and Rogue Valleys. 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.”
After learning that Omaze retained up to 85% of the donated funds, Plaintiffs filed this suit alleging that Omaze’s marketing is deceptive and violates California law.” In 2017, the last year before the switch, Omaze reported approximately $750,000 in revenue, with the substantial majority—approximately $450,000—passed through to CAFA. “In
To get a sense of the costs at issue, over 2017-2019, at least 485 consumers purchased stem cell therapy injections from one defendant, Superior, at a total cost of $3,350,416. They provided “resources — marketing manuals, flyers, lectures, sample emails ads, and PowerPoints — and a procedure to launch advertising campaigns.”
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. Meticulous Market Research Pvt.
Mueller has continuously been in charge since 2017. Doctoral program: The FTC alleged that defendants marketed “‘accelerated’ programs that enable students to quickly complete their degree, including quickly completing a dissertation.” In 2014, GCE chartered GCU as an Arizona nonprofit corporation.
The parties discussed potential partnership in 2017 and 2018, but the discussions didn’t go well. 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.
Viacom also engaged a market research company to learn more about “southern beach culture,” which suggested that the term Flora-bama was “either unknown or though [sic] to refer strictly to the bar.” 1744, 1757 (2017)…. New Life Art, Inc., 3d 1266 (11th Cir. Nor was the use explicitly misleading. Tam, 137 S.
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.
False urgency is a marketing tactic that creates a false sense of scarcity to pressure consumers into making a purchase, often resulting in dark patterns, limited stock, and unexpected delivery. The DoCA had illustrated 10 practices as dark patterns. They are: 1.
Ventis also advertised Enduracaine and Endura-KT as comparable to, and replacements for, EXPAREL. It marketed Endura-KT as safe and acceptable for use, advertised that Endura-KT provides an EXTENDED DURATION of pain relief and that it is Quick Onset Long Lasting, Safe, for Pediatric Use, and Cost Effective.
28, 2025) The parties compete in the market for retail amusement devices. Here, the Lanham Act falseadvertising claim survives for a jury, but the RICO claims are tossed out on summary judgment because theyre RICO claims. TNT Amusements, Inc. Torch Electronics, LLC, 2025 WL 947506, No. 4:23-CV-330-JAR (E.D.
months first action pendency in 2017. 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. Eric Johnson: have they been successful in pushing others out of the market?
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