Remove 2019 Remove Advertising Remove False Advertising
article thumbnail

court: there's no right to jury trial when seeking only injunction/disgorgement in false advertising case

43(B)log

May 17, 2023) The court grants these timeshare plaintiffs’ motion for a bench trial, ruling that the Seventh Amendment doesn’t guarantee a jury trial in a false advertising case where the plaintiffs seek only equitable remedies. Timeshare Lawyers P.A., 2023 WL 3510374, No. 20-24681-Civ-Scola (S.D. Hard Candy, Ltd.

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

accusing someone of patent infringement can be actionable disparagement if you know the patent's invalid

43(B)log

million consent judgment, which defendants touted in a press release and advertised on Zinus’s website even after the court vacated the stipulated judgment. Courts have generally harmonized the Lanham Act with the Patent Act by requiring bad faith before claims about patent infringement can constitute false advertising.

article thumbnail

Defendant's belief its ads were effective is evidence of injury

43(B)log

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.

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

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. July 12, 2019). ” UGH. WorkshopX Inc.

Trademark 129
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.