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. By December of that year, it had distilled bourbon and filled its first bourbon barrel in a leased Kentucky facility. Apparently Master Distiller has no set definition.
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.,
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? Dastar barred a passing off claim.
Falseadvertising: Beyond the use of the mark, Boston Suburban allegedly took customer reviews from Boston Carriage and assigned fictitious names to the customers when it copied the reviews onto the “copycat” website. 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. According to Defendant’s internal memoranda, the advertising campaign was designed to “optimally position Onpro in [the] face of biosimilar competition.” 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. But in context, the meaning of the challenged statement is not ambiguous. [A]ny
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].
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
citing CEO’s request for “opportunities to get more late fee revenue in 2018. The record indicates that FleetCor’s deceptive advertising and unfair fee practices were ingrained in the fabric of the company for years. FleetCor promised savings on diesel purchases. thru a higher rate, less/no grace days, etc, etc.”]
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.
For the purposes of falseadvertising claims, the issue that the parties must address is whether there are material differences between the products, not why any such differences may exist. but without a resultant detectable difference in the product itself.
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.
Second, the court rejected defendants’ argument that their allegedly improper conduct ceased in 2018, giving the FTC no standing in court. The allegedly fraudulent reviews qualified as deceptive acts under the relevant UDAP laws, as did falselyadvertising rental listings as “verified,” “authentic,” and “available.”
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.
Nor did an arbitration provision in contracts for advertising after May 2018 defeat adequacy and typicality. The case was filed in August 2018, but Meta never sought to compel arbitration, and might have waived it; anyway, the named plaintiffs purchased ads before and after May 2018, making them adequate for both situations.
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.
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.
It brought Lanham Act and California FAL/UCL claims over defendants’ allegedly falseadvertising of their respective OTC lidocaine patches. Defendants argued that the claims were barred by laches, but the causes of action weren’t available before ZTlido entered the market in February 2018. back and spinal pain).
During parts of 2018 and 2019, defendants offered payments to their physicians to promote the supply program to facilities. Defendants tell facilities that they are not a vendor; rather, they are a national physician’s practice that is compliant with all requirements under the Medicare supply program.
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.
It first expanded into Austin in 2018. Section 43(a) reaches more broadly; the court here applies Lexmark to both falseadvertising and trademark claims. Meanwhile, Rex Exchange, founded in 2015, offers an online platform for homeowners and homebuyers to transact the sale of single-family homes.
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.
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.
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. but MaxRelief wasn’t a party—Painaway sued and obtained the injunction against its Australian supplier.
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.
Since 2018, RB Health has sold both products “to the same distributors and retailers at the same price. The price the consumer pays for the Products is not set by RB Health.” Thus, RB Health argued, it was not responsible for plaintiff’s harm and he lacked Article III standing.
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.”
2018))); Jessani, 744 F. App’x 701, 704 (2d Cir. 2020) (“To survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs must plausibly allege that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled by the relevant statements.” App’x 18, 19 (2d Cir.
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.”
Mary Kate Fernandez, The Kids Don’t Stand a Chance: Unfair and Deceptive Advertising in Children’s Apps, 66 Loy. The results of this study led members of the United States Senate and several public interest groups to petition the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to investigate apps marketed specifically to children.
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.” We can recruit in high schools that would not let us in the past.
As to package labeling, the claims centered on an allegedly consistent false/misleading comparison of a JUUL pod to one pack of cigarettes and statements that JUUL is an “alternative for adult smokers.”
2018), a reasonable consumer is not “expected to look beyond misleading representations” in one part of an advertisement “to discover the truth. The “duty to read” terms properly “called to [a consumer’s] attention” does not imply a “duty to ferret out contract provisions. contained in inconspicuous hyperlinks.” And, under Mantikas v.
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.
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