Remove 2022 Remove Branding Remove False Advertising Remove Marketing
article thumbnail

alleged misrepresentation of partnership/approval suffices for false advertising claim

43(B)log

8, 2023) When does TM logic creep into false advertising cases? Tundra solicits sellers on Faire’s platform to provide their Faire Direct links to retailers registered with Tundra by “promising to promote their brands to new retailers and give them greater exposure” to Tundra retailers. Faire Wholesale, Inc. Tundra, Inc.,

article thumbnail

facially plausible false advertising claim can be added to TM complaint

43(B)log

Copper Compression Brands LLC, 2021 WL 5013799, No. 27, 2021) Ideavillage sued CCB for trademark infringement and false designation of origin related to Ideavillage’s “Copper Fit” line of copper-infused compression garments. Here, the court granted leave to amend to add a false advertising claim. 4604 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

California Supreme Court reaffirms strict liability for false advertising in Serova

43(B)log

3d -, 2022 WL 3453395, S260736 (Cal. 18, 2022) Not bound by Article III, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling despite the parties’ settlement. Not all marketing of artistic works is noncommercial speech. The First Amendment has long coexisted with no-fault false advertising laws.

article thumbnail

"#1 Brand" claim was literally false because of apples-to-oranges comparison

43(B)log

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. It’s used on every package and in advertising.

article thumbnail

calling an accepted Rule 68 offer a judgment of infringement could be defamatory

43(B)log

11, 2024) I have a long-running interest in Rule 68 offers of judgment, and this case involves an interaction with false advertising law! The parties compete in the shoe market. Trial was scheduled for 2022 (!), We are fiercely protective of the Crocs brand and our iconic DNA.

article thumbnail

disparagement of a non-market participant doesn't provide Lanham Act standing

43(B)log

19-CV-7577 (KMK), 2022 WL 4368036 (S.D.N.Y. 20, 2022) Plaintiff PCC sued NABP, a nonprofit whose membership consists of state/similar political unit boards of pharmacy (some other pharmacy associations/partnerships are also separate defendants), alleging violations of the Sherman Act and false advertising under the Lanham Act.

article thumbnail

court allows Nike's legal theories and most of its expert testimony against StockX's resales/NFTs

43(B)log

Nike claims that, despite those efforts, StockX sold a number of Nike-branded shoes that were counterfeits. NFT background: In early 2022, StockX introduced Vault NFTs, which featured Nike’s trademarks and provided the holder ownership of an associated physical item. Cross-examination could address any deviation from market conditions.