Remove 2022 Remove Brands Remove Copying Remove False Advertising
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. The First Amendment has long coexisted with no-fault false advertising laws. citing both UCL and Lanham Act claims, including false advertising claims.] “The

article thumbnail

statements to investors not probative of commercial ad/promotion in Lanham Act case

43(B)log

2022 WL 18399950, No. 26, 2022) [much other stuff skipped] The parties had a false advertising dispute that went to a jury, which found that FIGS wasn’t liable for falsely advertising the antimicrobial properties of its scrubs. FIGS’ alleged copying of SPI’s products was not relevant to false advertising.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Italy's #1 Brand of Pasta plausibly communicates geographic origin despite Barilla's argument it's just a TM

43(B)log

3d -, 2022 WL 10128276, No. 17, 2022) Along with the headline-worthy nature of the claim (“ITALY’S #1 BRAND OF PASTA” plausibly falsely communicates Italian origin), the decision contains an extended discussion of judicial notice on a motion to dismiss v. Could “ITALY’S #1 BRAND OF PASTA” mislead reasonable consumers?

article thumbnail

Inter American Convention allows claims that Lanham Act makes dubious after Abitron; but what about Article III?

43(B)log

Industria, based on Colombia, produces and distributes food products under two relevant brand names: Zenú and Ranchera. They’re successful brands: approximately $300,000,000 annually in sales of Zenú products and $100,000,000 in sales of Ranchera products. Coca-Cola Company, 38 F.4th 4th 1067 (Fed.

article thumbnail

9th Circuit courts are very committed to letting juries hear testimony about surveys

43(B)log

2022 WL 17218077, No. 2, 2022) Before the jury verdict in favor of Monster’s false advertising claim was this opinion resolving evidentiary issues. However, they fail to show that Monster dirtied its hands to make the false advertising claims now alleged against Defendants.” Monster Energy Co.

article thumbnail

2d Cir. attempts to explain when puffery can be found as a matter of law

43(B)log

2022 WL 3008706, F.4th 29, 2022) Discussion of district court opinion. ICC develops model building codes and standards; it sued a competitor, UpCodes, for false advertising (Lanham Act, NY GBL, and common law unfair competition). International Code Council, Inc. UpCodes Inc., 4th - (2d Cir.

article thumbnail

Ten things to know about NFTs

The IPKat

Despite the uncertainty around the long-term success of NFTs, we have certainly seen a “land grab” from brands filing trade marks, including ITV (for LOVE ISLAND), Heineken and even The Empire State Building [Katpost with details from Becky Knott here ].