Remove 2020 Remove Advertising Remove False Advertising Remove Marketing
article thumbnail

Retailer has standing to assert Lanham Act false advertising claims against its own supplier

43(B)log

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 false advertising claim survived.

article thumbnail

Falsely advertising "ghost guns" as legal in NY is actionable

43(B)log

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.”

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

two Zillow false advertising cases, divergent outcomes

43(B)log

2, 2021) Rex sued Zillow and the National Association of Realtors for antitrust and false advertising violations. Surprisingly, the antitrust claims survive, as do false advertising claims agains Zillow. Lanham Act claim: Was this commercial advertising or promotion? C21-312 TSZ, 2021 WL 3930694 (W.D.

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

TM complainant fails to sink its teeth into unrelated false advertising claims

43(B)log

Unsurprisingly, the trademark claims survive a motion to dismiss, but associated false advertising claims don’t. VFB’s marks are visible to the public in many places, including on VFB’s website, in the public records of the USPTO, and in various national media due to VFB’s continuous marketing of its products.”

article thumbnail

false advertising claim fails, in part because of stringent antitrust rules

43(B)log

In re EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales Practices & Antitrust Litig., 17, 2020) A lot of stuff here; I will ignore the non-false advertising related aspects of this mostly antitrust case. Sanofi argued that none of its advertisements or promotional materials made any of these assertions.

article thumbnail

individual communications to retailer & regulator weren't advertising or promotion

43(B)log

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 false advertising), the court addressed a motion to dismiss by defendant ViaClean.