Remove 2022 Remove Brands Remove Designs Remove False Advertising
article thumbnail

Amazon escapes liability for its Brand Registry advertising

43(B)log

21, 2023) Deetsch alleged that he owned design patents for CPAP pillow products, which the Lei defendants infringed. They also allegedly used Deetch’s image in ads and on packaging, and allegedly falsely claimed on Amazon that their pillow products “were designed in the United States but are manufactured in China.”

article thumbnail

dissatisfaction w/Amazon's partner program isn't TM infringement/false advertising

43(B)log

2022 WL 670919, NO. 7, 2022) Melwani owns the Royal Silk trademark for “a wide variety of products.” His marks are enrolled in Amazon Brand Registry, and Royal Silk Direct maintains an authorized Royal Silk “storefront” on Amazon.com. False designation of origin/false advertising: Lasoff v.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

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.

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! Trial was scheduled for 2022 (!), We are fiercely protective of the Crocs brand and our iconic DNA. The parties compete in the shoe market.

article thumbnail

selling allegedly stolen/converted merchandise isn't reverse passing off

43(B)log

3:21-CV-00499 (JCH), 2022 WL 313965 (D. 2, 2022) The parties have a dispute over control of a fashion business. But the complaint didn’t actually allege that defendants advertised items from “The Line,” only that they sold them. Second, more fundamentally, this was conversion/breach of contract, not false advertising.

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. Many of the physical items were Nike sneakers.

article thumbnail

What legal lines can’t NFTs cross? The Nike v StockX lawsuit may provide answers

IPilogue

On February 3 rd 2022 Nike Inc. sued StockX LLC for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, and related causes. Nike claimed trademark dilution, pointing to StockX’s heavy use of trademarks in attracting consumers familiar with the Nike brand. StockX Vault NFTs. Recent Developments.