Remove 2019 Remove Advertising Remove Copying Remove False Advertising
article thumbnail

Using dominant competitor's part names/numbers for comparison isn't false advertising, TM infringement, or (c) infringement

43(B)log

15, 2023) Simpson sued its competitor MiTek for using Simpson part numbers for structural connectors/fasteners for use in the construction industry in its catalogs/other promotional material; the court here, after a nonjury trial before the magistrate judge, rather comprehensively rejects its false advertising, trademark, and copyright claims. (It

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

District of Delaware Grants Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff Damages Expert’s Testimony in False Advertising Action under the Lanham Act

Delaware Intellectual Property Litigation Blog

May 7, 2021), the Court granted Natera’s motion to exclude at trial the opinions of CareDx’s damages expert relating to “corrective advertising damages.” 1117(a)(2), a successful false advertising plaintiff can recover the costs of any completed advertising that actually and reasonably responds to the defendant’s offending ads.’” Id.

article thumbnail

competitor's copying of photos doesn't inherently inflict competitive harm

43(B)log

McCleese registered copyrights for his photos in 2019. Along with copyright claims, McCleese asserted Lanham Act false advertising claims. He did allege sadness, distress, and “profound grief” from Natorp’s copying of images of a particular landscape job, but the Lanham Act doesn’t cover psychological, emotional harm.

Copying 64
article thumbnail

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

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This case hit my alerts because of its discussion about keyword advertising, but first, I have to digest how the court got there. 1:18-CV-850-RP, 2019 WL 5258056, at *2 (W.D. June 26, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:18-CV-850-RP, 2019 WL 5243187 (W.D. June 26, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No.

Trademark 100
article thumbnail

9th Circuit courts are very committed to letting juries hear testimony about surveys

43(B)log

2, 2022) Before the jury verdict in favor of Monster’s false advertising claim was this opinion resolving evidentiary issues. They weren’t directly asked about the phrase “Super Creatine,” whether participants had prior experiences with or opinions of Bang, or whether they had seen Vital’s advertising in the market.

article thumbnail

Internal Search Results Aren’t Trademark Infringing–PEM v. Peninsula

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This is a case involving a trademark owner and a competitive keyword advertiser. That’s certainly true for high-profile and well-advertised consumer items like fast food chains, mass-market phones, and major car labels, but is it true in this particular niche? Google * Competitive Keyword Advertising Claim Fails–Reflex Media v.