2021 False Advertising Ownership 
43(B)log
OCTOBER 25, 2021
Amazon.com, 2021 WL 4819602, No. 15, 2021) Disagreeing with a case against Apple , the court here concludes that Amazon’s “buy” option that doesn’t give consumers ownership does not harm consumers who haven’t (yet) lost access to the content, rejecting the price premium theory for reasons that don’t make much sense to me.
43(B)log
AUGUST 16, 2021
City of Pasadena, 2021 WL 3553499, No. 12, 2021) For over a century, PTRA has hosted the Rose Parade and Rose Bowl Game as part of its annual New Year’s Day Celebration. There was no controversy as to whether Pasadena had an “ownership” interest in the relevant trademarks. Pasadena Tournament of Roses Ass’n v.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
43(B)log
SEPTEMBER 8, 2021
2021 WL 1549667, No. 20, 2021) iTunes allows consumers to “Rent” or “Buy” movies, television shows, music and other content. Apple, Inc., 2:20-cv-01628-JAM-AC (E.D. Renting is less expensive; buying leads the content to appear in a consumer’s “Purchased” folder.
43(B)log
DECEMBER 23, 2021
2021 WL 6049964, No. 12, 2021) After Lexmark , can a competitor bring a false association claim when the false association is with an unrelated third party? This court answers yes, though limits the effect of that by applying what looks like ordinary false advertising analysis. FireBlok IP Holdings, LLC v.
43(B)log
OCTOBER 26, 2021
Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc. Sussman, 2021 WL 4948099, No. 20, 2021) In this timeshare exit false advertising litigation, the court excludes Wyndham’s expert. Wyndham claims that TET and Sussman falsely advertised and induced timeshare owners to breach their contracts with Wyndham by ceasing payments.
43(B)log
FEBRUARY 16, 2023
The court says the PTO “granted” the application on June 14, 2021, but that’s the filing date—the ITU application was published for opposition in April 2022, allowed June 2022, and an extension of time to file a statement of use has been granted as of this writing. He failed to allege a “valid, protectable trademark.”
43(B)log
SEPTEMBER 7, 2021
Marchese, 2021 WL 3783259, No. 26, 2021) Always something new in trademark! Perhaps overreacting, Wakefern sued for trademark infringement and false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act and violation of state unfair competition law, which is coextensive and thus disappears from our story. Wakefern Food Corp.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
69 
Let's personalize your content