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
Victory operates as Brough Brothers, which claims it was the first African American owned bourbon distillery in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, with the requisite licenses to operate a distillery by September 2020. If a company makes a literally false statement, then it can be presumed that the consumer who receives the statement was deceived.
In summer 2020, AHBP began negotiating with the Lynd defendants for the exclusive license to market and sell a surface disinfectant/cleaner known as “Bioprotect 500” in Argentina. Lynd advertised the Product as effective against the coronavirus. the Lanham Act falseadvertising claim survived.
This allowed McCormick to advertise what seemed like an attractive lower price and charge more. Thus, for disgorgement of profits, a plaintiff need only show the defendant’s “sales of the allegedly falselyadvertised products,” after which the burden shifts to the defendant to prove “any costs or deductions.” Edriver Inc.,
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. Lanham Act claim: Was this commercial advertising or promotion? C21-312 TSZ, 2021 WL 3930694 (W.D.
Defendants allegedly copied key components of Trackman’s copyrighted software and falsely suggested, in promotions and advertisements, that defendants were authorized to use the well-known courses in their game. Although the court dismissed a contract claim, copyright and falseadvertising claims survived.
They also allegedly used Deetch’s image in ads and on packaging, and allegedly falsely claimed on Amazon that their pillow products “were designed in the United States but are manufactured in China.” Amazon’s Brand Registry advertises “Automated Protections” that are “[p]owered by Amazon’s Machine Learning.” Motion to dismiss granted.
From 2015 to 2020, ASHI featured the following slogan on its website below its organizational logo: “American Society of Home Inspectors. They offer memberships to home inspectors, who typically inspect homes prior to home sales; they are currently the only two national bodies of this type. But wasn’t InterNACHI alleging sole competition?
2020 WL 9210739, No. 6, 2020) From the deepest depths of backlog: Tocmail alleged that Microsoft’s deceptive promotions of its cyber-security service, Safe Links, constituted falseadvertising and contributory falseadvertising. This wasn’t enough to state a claim for contributory falseadvertising. “[T]he
Unsurprisingly, the trademark claims survive a motion to dismiss, but associated falseadvertising claims don’t. VFB alleged trademark infringement, and that the Vampiro Cocktail label’s claims that it is made from 100% agave and with grapefruit were falseadvertising that would tarnish and dilute VFB’s marks.
Lawmakers in New York City and New York State banned the sale of unfinished frames and receivers in 2020 and 2022, respectively. The advertising bit: Defendants allegedly misled New York customers into “believing that unfinished frames and receivers are legal workarounds to New York’s gun control laws, as well as federal law.”
In August 2020, Krikor discovered that Sports Mall had posted at least six of her photographs on its website and advertised the depicted items for sale on its site…. This alleged chutzpah triggered the falseadvertising element of the case. “[T]he Sports Mall operates its own website. Query: are there actual damages?
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 falseadvertising, trademark, and copyright claims. (It
17, 2020) A lot of stuff here; I will ignore the non-falseadvertising related aspects of this mostly antitrust case. The court says the usual not-good things about falseadvertising’s relationship to antitrust, unfortunately: Deceptive speech usually doesn’t violate antitrust laws. 17-md-2785-DDC-TJJ (D.
Its principal, Patton, allegedly promoted the business “by creating a fictionalized crisis between [FedEx] and its ISPs and TSPs as an advertisement for the purported need for Route Consultant’s consultancy and other services.” Was this “commercial advertising or promotion”?
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 falseadvertising plaintiff can recover the costs of any completed advertising that actually and reasonably responds to the defendant’s offending ads.’” Id.
This case hit my alerts because of its discussion about keyword advertising, but first, I have to digest how the court got there. ” More Posts About Keyword Advertising * Internal Search Results Aren’t Trademark Infringing–PEM v. ” That prompted this litigation. ” UGH.
9, 2023) Along with updating its previous decision (I didn’t see anything that affected the Lanham Act analysis of the key issue of whether a retailer can sue a supplier for falseadvertising), the court addressed a motion to dismiss by defendant ViaClean.
7, 2023) Navatar sued for state and federal falseadvertising, as well as commercial defamation, injurious falsehoods, unfair competition. Navatar Group, Inc. DealCloud, Inc., 2023 WL 1797266, No. 21-cv-1255 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y.
OSD Audio then sued Outlaw under §512(f), and Outlaw counterclaimed for falseadvertising and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, copyright infringement, and trade libel. Lanham Act: The user manual did not constitute “commercial advertising or promotion.” But “[n]ot all commercial speech is promotional.” Prager Univ.
For example, according to the complaint: On August 19, 2020, Plaintiff searched for “Royal Silk” under all departments on Amazon.com, yielding 60 product listings, including “Sponsored” product listings—ads paid for by the seller. ” The false designation of origin claim is similarly governed by the Ninth Circuit’s Lasoff v.
In 2020, Medina got the disclosures from the 2014 case sealed. He then sued the court document repository websites (and other defendants) for defamation, falseadvertising, and more. The trial court anti-SLAPPED that lawsuit. The appeals court affirms. I’ll concentrate on the Section 230 discussion.
In case you missed it, here is my Trademark Nominative Fair Use of Another’s Logo post from March, leading up to the 2020 AIPLA Annual Spring Meeting. The post 2020 Midwest IP Institute in the Books appeared first on DuetsBlog ®.
Since in or about late 2020, ML Fashion has been receiving calls from vendors about unpaid bills or about where to ship certain goods that have turned out to be for Nobelle.” But the complaint didn’t actually allege that defendants advertised items from “The Line,” only that they sold them.
In late 2020, KDI told Metrasens that the Intertek unit tested was an old version. For injury, a plaintiff must generally prove damages, but they may be presumed in cases of willful deception where the plaintiff was the target of comparative advertising. And it is a rebuttable presumption.
Eat Just, GMI’s parent company, filed an ITU for a stylized GOOD Meat mark in 2020; in 2021, defendants entered into agreements granting their security interests in the intent-to-use application to a third party, and also Eat Just assigned the entirety of its business having an interest in the GMI mark to GMI.
Courts have rejected Section 230 defenses against claims for falseadvertising, deceptive trade practices, and tortious interference. 29 (2020); U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S REVIEW OF SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT OF 1996 (2020). See, e.g., E-Ventures Worldwide, LLC v. Google, Inc. , 3d 1265 (M.D.
In late 2020, a new Plaid user interface finally propitiated PNC. PNC sued for counterfeiting, infringement, and falseadvertising/unfair competition under federal and Pennsylvania law. Plaid’s messaging also encouraged PNC customers to change banks.” I attempt to reconnect.
This is a falseadvertising lawsuit again the mobile app game Game of Thrones: Conquest. Also, the district court took issue with the 2020 call-to-action referring to the TOS as “Terms of Use” when it was actually the “Terms of Service.” sought to send the case to arbitration. Warner Bros.
It alleged that the Philips defendants, who make such devices, engaged in falseadvertising about one of SoClean’s devices in order to deflect blame for the Philips devices’ design defects. Commercial advertising or promotion: A separate problem. Recall notice: Eli Lilly & Co. Roussel Corp., 2d 460 (D.N.J.
1, 2021) De Cortes, an 84-year old woman, worked for defendants/predecessors from 2003-2020 in their real estate business. In 2020, De Cortes obtained a Florida real estate sales associate license and asked if she could serve as a real estate agent for BIR. Defendants represent 170 owners of units in the Four Ambassadors.
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. WGACA, LLC, 2022 WL 902931, No. 2253 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y.
On November 7 th , Conde Nast sued Drake and 21 Savage for $4 million for falseadvertising and infringing Vogue’s trademarks. 2020: [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. 2019: [link]. 2018: [link].
Plaintiff attempted to plead that a small number of calls to people contracting with it constituted “commercial advertising or promotion,” but the court still didn’t buy it. Vacasa LLC, No. 6:21-cv-326-MC, 2021 WL 5316986 (D. 15, 2021) Previous motion to dismiss. In Grubbs v. Sheakley Grp., 3d 785 (6th Cir.
Fresh Bourbon allegedly falselyadvertises that Fresh Bourbon is the “first black-owned bourbon distillery in Kentucky,” and makes other related false claims, which is allegedly false because it’s not a distillery, which requires both federal (TTB) and Kentucky (KABC) licenses.
16, 2021) Previous ruling ; new judge still finds the falseadvertising claims sufficiently pled. Thus, Microsoft allegedly falselyadvertises its scanner as possessing a security capability that it does not actually possess; TocMail identified statements such as “a higher standard of security at lower cost than. [is
J-B has used unqualified “Made in USA” claims in its advertising. ITW advertises “the interchange between its products and the matching OEM manufacturer products” in its materials, sometimes including OEM interchanges for specific automotive brands in its package advertising. Epoxy: In J-B Weld Co., Gorilla Glue Co.,
They plausibly alleged, with examples, lots of horsepower claims, and plausibly alleged that an ordinary person would understand these representations to mean that a treadmill’s in-home continuous horsepower matched the “CHP” value advertised.
Beyond 79, LLC, 2020 WL 9848431, No. 15, 2020) Previous opinion. From 2011 to the present, Defendant has published various advertisements stating that it is ranked or rated “#1” by the Today Show. Express Gold Cash, Inc. 18-CV-00837 EAW (W.D.N.Y. The parties compete in the market for buying gold from ordinary people.
2, 2022) Before the jury verdict in favor of Monster’s falseadvertising 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.
Plaintiffs purchased Ikon ski passes for the 2019-20 ski season but, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendants closed their ski resorts on March 15, 2020.” 2020) and its progeny, everything but the CLRA claim for damages should be dismissed because these equitable claims were only available if legal claims failed. 3d 834 (9th Cir.
I n mid-2020, Marchese allegedly contacted Wakefern about the possibility of joining the Wakefern cooperative. Perhaps overreacting, Wakefern sued for trademark infringement and falseadvertising in violation of the Lanham Act and violation of state unfair competition law, which is coextensive and thus disappears from our story.
As soon as it was enacted, Fountainhead advertised that it would “soon be tackling the loan inquiries lined up in our queue, providing business owners with capital they need within days.” It sought to represent a class bringing state law claims for fraudulent concealment, unfair business practices, and falseadvertising.
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. 5th 642, 651 (2020). 5th 279, 306 (2020) (quoting § 17500).
24, 2021) Plaintiffs sought class certification of their falseadvertising claims based on the claims that KIND falselyadvertised “All Natural / Non-GMO,” “Non-GMO,” and “No Genetically Engineered Ingredients”; KIND sought to exclude expert reports. 2020), held that past purchasers couldn’t maintain an injunctive class.
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