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. The fact that both parties used first black-owned distillery in their marketing campaigns was insufficient.
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.
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. C21-312 TSZ, 2021 WL 3930694 (W.D. NAR “is the nation’s largest trade association for real estate professionals.”
Unsurprisingly, the trademark claims survive a motion to dismiss, but associated falseadvertising 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.”
From 2015 to 2020, ASHI featured the following slogan on its website below its organizational logo: “American Society of Home Inspectors. The court of appeals declined to presume harm just because the parties were each other’s sole competitor in the national home inspector market.
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
Lawmakers in New York City and New York State banned the sale of unfinished frames and receivers in 2020 and 2022, respectively. Defendants contended that marketing unfinished frames and receivers as “legal” was protected by the First Amendment. First, the marketing was commercial speech: “NO FFL Required!” It was not.
In re EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales Practices & Antitrust Litig., 17, 2020) A lot of stuff here; I will ignore the non-falseadvertising related aspects of this mostly antitrust case. Sanofi argued that none of its advertisements or promotional materials made any of these assertions.
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. Microsoft appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog. The trial court anti-SLAPPED that lawsuit. The appeals court affirms.
The result is that FedEx routes are, as a practical matter, intangible commodities traded on a competitive market and subject to price fluctuation based on the actual or perceived value of each individual route.
. § 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.
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 ®.
We usually get ours at the local farmers market.] In 2020, the plaintiff learned that “Defendant was using Plaintiff’s Marks in online tamale advertisements and in Google AdWords, which placed Defendant’s products above Plaintiff’s products in search results for the phrase ‘Texas Tamale.'” ” Say what? .”
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.” appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.
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). Vimeo appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.
It provides farmers, ranchers, and butchers with marketing education and technical assistance; incubates “Meat Collectives” across the country; and educates consumers about responsible meat production and consumption practices. GOOD Meat, Inc., 3d - , 2024 WL 1083462, No. 23-cv-04145-RFL (N.D. Disfavors confusion.
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. POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.,
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.
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
3, 2025) Metrasens and plaintiff KDI compete in the market for ferromagnetic detectors, used to detect magnetic items (such as iron) on a persons body or clothing before the person enters a room containing an MRI scanner. In late 2020, KDI told Metrasens that the Intertek unit tested was an old version. Kopp Development, Inc.
Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liab. SoClean is a dominant player in the market for medical devices that sanitize continuous positive airway pressure machines (CPAPs), which treat sleep apnea and respiratory conditions. And, they continued, SoClean was illegally marketing its devices. In re SoClean, Inc., 22-542 (W.D.
Plaintiff alleged that the potential purchasing public was homeowners under contract with it in Lincoln and Deschutes Counties, because that was where the calls with allegedly false claims went, but didn’t explain why that was the market and not also two other counties where plaintiff alleged similar homes were located. In Grubbs v.
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. Groupon appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog. Reyes & Adler v.
28, 2022) Outlaw lost its bid for a preliminary injunction enjoining Santos, aka OSD Audio, from selling products containing user manuals that allegedly infringed Outlaw’s copyright, falsely represented OSD Audio products’ specifications, and falsely represented that OSD Audio and Outlaw’s products are similar. Prager Univ.
9, 2024) The parties compete in the sale of “chemical bonding products marketed for home and automotive use.” 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.
7, 2023) Navatar sued for state and federal falseadvertising, as well as commercial defamation, injurious falsehoods, unfair competition. The “touchstone” is “that the contested representations are part of an organized campaign to penetrate the relevant market. Navatar Group, Inc. DealCloud, Inc., 2023 WL 1797266, No.
Beyond 79, LLC, 2020 WL 9848431, No. 15, 2020) Previous opinion. The parties compete in the market for buying gold from ordinary people. The Today Show received the highest offer from Defendant, which offered 90% of market value. Express Gold Cash, Inc. 18-CV-00837 EAW (W.D.N.Y.
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. It may have been reasonable for it to assume the bags’ marketability.”
Wakefern operates approximately 353 supermarkets under various brands such as ShopRite and Fairway Market across several states, and has a registration for ShopRite. Marchese formed defendant Family Markets for the stated purpose of carrying out a retail supermarket business. Falseadvertising: Not commercial advertising or promotion.
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.
The mark was weak; the goods were not proximate; the marks were similar; one social media instance of confusion was insufficient to show likely confusion; marketing channels didn’t favor likely confusion because everyone uses the internet and social media; cost below $25 favored confusion. Falseadvertising/passing off: Same basic problems.
On Friday, July 21, an Illinois district court ruled that a Pakistani employee of a medical device distribution company infringed on Ethicon’s trademark when he bought, marketed and sold counterfeit Ethicon devices. Ethicon is a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson and won an $18 million default judgment.
International Trade Commission (ITC) saw a flurry of new complaints filed in the second half of 2020, particularly in November and December. and other unfair acts such as misappropriation of trade secrets, falseadvertising, breach of contract, and antitrust violations. In January 2021, I noted that the U.S.
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.
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).
International Trade Commission (ITC) saw a flurry of new complaints filed in the second half of 2020, particularly in November and December. and other unfair acts such as misappropriation of trade secrets, falseadvertising, breach of contract, and antitrust violations. In January 2021, I noted that the U.S.
The Court, after assessing the matter, partially denied RealReal’s motion to dismiss the First Amended complaint, as it was found that 1) Chanel’s allegation that RealReal marketed and sold counterfeit Chanel products was adequate; 2) RealReal’s advertising regarding the authenticity of the products it sells was false.
The Court, after assessing the matter, partially denied RealReal’s motion to dismiss the First Amended complaint, as it was found that: 1) Chanel’s allegation that RealReal marketed and sold counterfeit Chanel products was adequate; 2) RealReal’s advertising regarding the authenticity of the products it sells was false.
Plaintiffs sought to amend the complaint to add, inter alia, a Lanham Act falseadvertising claim, which the court held was not futile. Footnote: Commercial advertising or promotion isn’t necessarily straightforward. Is this an organized campaign to penetrate the relevant market?
4, 2024) Finding Zesty Paws’ “#1 Brand” claim literally false, the court grants a preliminary injunction despite Zesty Paws’ attempt to create a factual dispute about what a “brand” is. Nutramax and Zesty Paws are direct competitors in the pet supplement market. Thus, Nutramax would likely show literal falsity.
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. It was thus barred from equitable relief for its trademark infringement, falseadvertising, and state deceptive trade practices claims.
In March 2020 (I was going to say mid-March, but I recognize there’s a question about how long March 2020 actually was), he began marketing facemasks, including masks he described as “N95” and “Class N95.” Beginning in April 2020, customers began complaining about not receiving orders.
Netaifm alleged that defendants engaged in anticompetitive market behavior when the Jain entities acquired majority shares of two local design firms, which connect manufacturers to growers, and alleged falseadvertising. 2021) The parties compete in the micro-irrigation industry, which targets agricultural growers.
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. A jury could readily conclude that “Plaid and PNC provide far different services and market to very different customers.”
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