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
Brough Brothers alleged that Fresh Bourbon falselyadvertised that Fresh Bourbon is the first black-owned bourbon distillery in Kentucky, and made other related claims. If a company makes a literally false statement, then it can be presumed that the consumer who receives the statement was deceived.
The complaint was partially time-barred with respect to one copyright, as to which Wolf alleged awareness of the infringement in early 2018; the three-year statute of limitations ran before Wolf sued. But what about falseadvertising? Thus, Wolf didn’t plead the requisite “false statement of fact” in a “commercial advertisement.”
False designation of origin/falseadvertising: Lasoff v. 2018), “rejected trademark infringement claims like Mr. Melwani’s, holding that ‘Amazon is permitted to use a trademarked search term to direct consumers to competing products, as long as the search results are clearly labeled.’” Amazon.com, Inc.,
Boston Suburban allegedly continued to use the “Logan Car Service” mark in online keyword advertising and in metatags, and continued to copy customer reviews from Boston Carriage’s website and publish them on online review platforms. The actionable alleged misrepresentation is that defendant performed the relevant services.
On Twitter, UpCodes claimed that their copies of building codes are “kept up-to-date with all the amendments integrated natively into the code,” and separately that they had integrated “all 973 amendments” to the New Jersey 2018 codes. UpCodes, Inc., 2021 WL 1236106, Nos. 6261 (VM) & 20 Civ. 4316 (VM) (S.D.N.Y.
The first pegfilgrastim biosimilar hit the market in November 2018, and would ultimately be followed by five others, including Sandoz’s Ziextenzo in November 2019. But the FDA, independent reviews at scientific journals, and even some of Amgen’s own employees criticized the advertising claims as unsupported and misleading. Sandoz Inc.
In 2018, Metrasens purchased a Kopp Ferralert Solo unit from a third-party located in Singapore and provided it, along with a Metrasens Ferroguard Screener unit, to a company called Intertek Testing & Certification. And it is a rebuttable presumption. But in context, the meaning of the challenged statement is not ambiguous. [A]ny
Meta’s Ads Manager displays a “Potential Reach” for an ad after advertisers select their targeting and placement criteria; the default for people in the United States aged 18 and up was over 200 million people, revised as demographic targeting criteria are selected. The court disagreed. This was enough for reliance for UCL standing purposes.
On November 7 th , Conde Nast sued Drake and 21 Savage for $4 million for falseadvertising and infringing Vogue’s trademarks. 2018: [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].
During parts of 2018 and 2019, defendants offered payments to their physicians to promote the supply program to facilities. Defendants’ counterclaim: Did Wound Care’s statements about the illegality of defendants’ program occur in commercial advertising or promotion?
Both sides now claim the other is liable for falseadvertising, among other claims.” Defendants also allegedly infringed RCI’s trademarks by using photographs of Roberto Coin jewelry and RCI’s logo in Kings Stone’s advertising after RCI terminated the relationship. And yes even borsheims has to be held accountable.”
They are: the Unfair Competition Law (UCL); the FalseAdvertising Law (FAL); and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). While they often cover the same conduct in falseadvertising cases and are cumulative of each other, they have differences. 2018) (cleaned up), or at least the test changes depending on the situation.
Lanham Act falseadvertising: The theory was that Meta misrepresented “the creation and ownership” of Logan’s photos. Dastar doesn’t clearly bar falseadvertising §43(a)(1)(B) claims in general, but it does bar the claim as pled here: “a copyright claim repackaged under a trademark statute.” 3d 1137 (9th Cir.
Among these were purportedly genuine second-hand Chanel products, which in 2018 was acknowledged by RealReal as one of its most popular brands bought and sold through consignment. In 2018 and thereafter, through its investigations, Chanel discovered that RealReal had seven counterfeit Chanel handbags in their product offerings.
Among these were purportedly genuine second hand Chanel products, which in 2018 was acknowledged by RealReal as one of its most popular brands bought and sold through consignment. In 2018 and thereafter, through its investigations, Chanel discovered that RealReal had seven counterfeit Chanel handbags in their product offerings.
Mary Kate Fernandez, The Kids Don’t Stand a Chance: Unfair and Deceptive Advertising in Children’s Apps, 66 Loy. A striking passage on host selling: This advertising practice, illegal during children’s television programming, is fundamentally unfair to child consumers.
Among many other things, FleetCor advertised that businesses could issue drivers “fuel only” payment cards in order to get greater protection against misuse, while internally acknowledging that the cards weren’t capable of limiting purchases to fuel only—in one case, a driver bought $200,000 in Speedway gift cards using the FleetCor card.
21, 2021) Though TocMail made it past a motion to dismiss , it failed at the summary judgment stage in its claim that Microsoft falselyadvertised its link scanning service’s capabilities, thus locking TocMail out of a big market. Microsoft Corp., 2021 WL 6750789, No. 20-60416-CIV-CANNON/Hunt (S.D.
23, 2020) MFSA brought trademark dilution and falseadvertising claims against Netflix for its portrayal in the film “The Laundromat.” Libel/false light claims aren’t addressed in this decision; see below.) Rogers governed the falseadvertising claim. CV 19-9330-CBM-AS(x) (C.D. It’s about money laundering.)
Falseadvertising/passing off: Same basic problems. Even if the rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm applied, Mandabach had actual knowledge of the use of the mark in April 2018, when its licensee sent a warning letter to Sadler regarding its purported infringement.
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. The consent judgment was a lump sum and, Princeton argued, included uncovered claims; most of the images fell within the 2017-18 period.
were valid and infringed, but the latter wasn’t counterfeited; SMRI’s dilution victory was vacated, but not its victories on deceptive trade practices, ACPA, falseadvertising, and unfair competition. Here the court considers acquiescence and laches. SMRI had unclean hands.
Multiple PG&E employees testified that, when they were assessing Eco’s products in 2018, they felt the 2014 test reports were ‘outdated,’” and PG&E had also received reports suggesting that Eco’s products “electrically tracked,” which presented a fire risk. There was a triable issue on the other parts of the claim.
Toyota argued that if Allen plans to argue that the Toyota Branded Parts it sells are covered by some type of Manufacturer Warranty as advertised to the consuming public, Toyota is entitled to know what warranties, if any, are offered by Allens suppliers. but without a resultant detectable difference in the product itself.
May 19, 2023) Whereas the timeshare falseadvertising cases might be making law largely applicable to other timeshare cases, what’s going on in the strip club advertising cases might have somewhat broader implications. The district court concluded that plaintiffs’ false endorsement claims were foreclosed by Electra v.
Defendants advertise that their platform, available through their website and corresponding mobile applications, allows users to post and search listings for living arrangements, including rental properties, room rentals, sublets, and roommate requests. Here, the court refused to dismiss the complaint or to grant a protective order.
It first expanded into Austin in 2018. Section 43(a) reaches more broadly; the court here applies Lexmark to both falseadvertising and trademark claims. Plaintiff also pointed to numerous calls it received from confused consumers as evidence that the callers assumed that it was the sole source of the advertising.
They alleged violation of California’s FAL and UCL, falseadvertising under the Lanham Act, trade libel, and negligence. Anyway, Mosafer pled that various news sources, including the New York Times and the Associated Press, reported about Broidy’s alleged unregistered foreign lobbying efforts in March and April 2018.
It brought Lanham Act and California FAL/UCL claims over defendants’ allegedly falseadvertising of their respective OTC lidocaine patches. Such a rule would allow any manner of misleading advertisement.” back and spinal pain). But that’s not relevant to the lost profits argument, which is part of causation.
Painaway advertised its products as “Australia’s No. MaxRelief stopped using the “Australia’s # 1” advertising slogan in 2018; Painaway advised Defendant’s customers that MaxRelief used “Australia’s #1” slogan in violation of an injunction order issued, via default, in E.D.
However, the advertised rates don’t include the “U.S. Music Royalty Fee in addition to the advertised and promised price.” “At Subway Franchisee Advertising Fund Trust, Ltd., 2018), a reasonable consumer is not “expected to look beyond misleading representations” in one part of an advertisement “to discover the truth.
American Girl applied for trademarks on a space-themed doll named Luciana Vega, which it began marketing in 2018 as its “Girl of the Year” doll. I will note here, as I often do, that in a falseadvertising case these allegations would likely be treated as conclusory at best. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 3d 389 (N.Y.
Since 2018, RB Health has sold both products “to the same distributors and retailers at the same price. DiGiacinto also sufficiently alleged that he will be unable to rely on the advertising or labeling of the children’s product in the future, providing standing to seek injunctive relief.
2018); and Howard v. 2018), it was plausible that “there is little chance that clarification or context on the reverse of the package will suffice to overcome a deception claim (especially at the motion-to-dismiss stage).” Bayer AG, No. 17-CV-647, 2017 WL 3168525 (N.D. July 26, 2017), vacated and remanded, 742 F. App’x 325 (9th Cir.
In 2018, GCE transferred the trademarks, campus, and certain assets and liabilities of the institution that GCE had operated as ‘Grand Canyon University,’ to GCU in exchange for GCU agreeing to pay GCE more than $870 million plus 6% annual interest.” The DOE also ordered GCU to cease advertising “nonprofit” status.
The court rejected defendants’ arguments that the putative classes were too heterogenous for certification: Some of the identified differences – for example, differences in advertisements that the named plaintiffs or class members may have seen over time or differences in the amount of JUUL product purchased – are simply not material.
2018))); Jessani, 744 F. C]ontext is crucial” for a court’s determination of “whether a reasonable consumer would have been misled by a particular advertisement.” App’x 701, 704 (2d Cir. internal quotation marks and brackets omitted) (quoting Jessani v. App’x 18, 19 (2d Cir.
And in November 2018, [redacted] Walmart claims that [redacted].Walmart Walmart argued something else redacted, but those allegations were “hotly disputed,” and anyway “Plaintiff produced evidence showing that although Walmart had [redacted]. Walmart also knew that [redacted],” creating an inference of willful blindness/reckless disregard.
At the time of briefing, there was also an issue of whether the MSDSs were “advertising,” but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court subsequently held that “subsection (v). encompass[es] activities other than ‘advertising,’ ” and that a statement need not have impacted a purchasing decision to be actionable. Commonwealth by Shapiro v.
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.
2018), which found that it was plausible that crackers labeled as “WHOLE GRAIN” and “MADE WITH WHOLE GRAIN” would mislead consumers into thinking that the grain content was predominantly whole grain. At this stage, it was plausible that consumers would expect the predominant oil to be almond oil, under Mantikas v. Kellogg Co.,
Hoffman alleged that a survey highlighted in “Prepared Foods” magazine in 2018 noted that “60% of consumers. And the use of “Wildflower” to describe the honey “bolsters the impression that actual honey is in the Product.” look for honey on the product label” and that “about half of consumers would pay at least 5% more for food.
That is, SquareTrade’s 2018 “Fast Cash” program began systematically reimbursing consumers only approximately 85% of the covered product’s purchase price, “regardless of the actual value of the product, when it was purchased, or its cost of replacement.”
In 2018, the federal government forced Copper Cane to alter the labels after determining that they were misleading. On both labels, the first line provides: “VINTED & BOTTLED BY ELOUAN.” Below, the 2016 provides: “NAPA, CA • CONTAINS SULFITES.”; the 2017 reads “ACAMPO, CA • CONTAINS SULFITES.” with “Purely Elouan, Always Coastal.”
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