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
SA-22-CV-00096-XR, 2022 WL 17086368 (W.D. 18, 2022) Lexmark provides standing to a purchaser because the harms it alleged are “commercial” harms. the Lanham Act falseadvertising claim survived. AHBP LLC v. More surprisingly (perhaps the court wanted to be sure it retained jurisdiction regardless of diversity?),
2022 WL 5245633, No. 6, 2022) The district court reverses the bankruptcy court ruling ( discussed here ) that held that falseadvertising had interfered with the debtor’s estate in violation of the automatic stay. Windstream has a 2-year contract. With Spectrum there are no contracts.
12, 2023) Following a large verdict for Monster on falseadvertising claims, this opinion discusses extensively the requirements for injunctive relief in falseadvertising cases. But Defendants have brought on themselves these unfortunate consequences through their falseadvertising.”
As alleged, Each ISP’s contract grants it a certain service area, or “route,” and the ISP is permitted to sell its route to another entity if they can agree on terms. Together they are known as CSPs, contracted service providers. But the relevant dates didn’t match; the letter at issue was released in July 2022.
Perhaps the false pretenses could give rise to claims not alleged in this case? Breach of contract, perhaps? But that would only be enforceable by users in contract privity). Is it falseadvertising for Facebook to describe the groups as “private”? Does that create a claim for falseadvertising?
FalseAdvertising. In general, courts should not permit a falseadvertising claim based on a “safe” representation where the representation is rendered untrue by third-party content. ” This is a highly defense-favorable reading of the contract provision. 2022 WL 4021776 (N.D. Implications.
On 24 June 2022, BAYC sued Ryder Ripps, a conceptual artist and NFT creator for trade mark infringement, unfair competition, falseadvertising, cybersquatting and other cause of actions before the Central District of California. This is a U.S NFTs – still subject to “old” IP law An NFT is a non-fungible (i.e.
CCM counterclaimed for abuse of process and for violations of the Lanham Act and related state laws; one ex-employee also brought counterclaims against loanDepot for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The false association/coordinate state law claims survived.
Digital assets can be protected by IP and have always been capable of being licensed or assigned via a contract, or protected as a trade mark. There have also been complaints where creators have tried to NFT their own creativity but by doing so have breached a contract.
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 falseadvertising.
2022 WL 2205263, -- F. 22, 2022) Held: A warranty is not “commercial advertising or promotion” under the Lanham Act. Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract under Tennessee common law and falseadvertising in violation of the Lanham Act. (OK, Plateau Casualty Ins. Securranty, Inc., 3d --, No.
Meeker, 2022 WL 6507718, NO. 19, 2022) Judge Cannon has done some other stuff, too. Litigation ensued, with lots of claims, including the Lanham Act claims on which I will focus, though breach of contract claims were prominent and survived a motion to dismiss. La Dolfina S.A., 20-82231-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart (S.D.
He paid money to get extra visibility for his dating profile and claims he got poor results, so he sued Bumble for falseadvertising. 2022 WL 4112360 (N.D. Alkutkar used the dating app Bumble. Bumble successfully redirects the case to arbitration based on its TOS. Alkutkar joined Bumble in 2016. Case citation : Alkutkar v.
1-22-0662, 2022 IL App (1st) 220662-U (Ill. It alleged federal trademark infringement, false description, falseadvertising, and dilution and related state claims, including breach of an earlier settlement. The relevant policies provided liability coverage for personal and advertising injury.
2022 WL 1599712, No. 19, 2022) The parties compete in the market for energy drinks. Monster alleged that VPX falselyadvertised Super Creatine as a source of creatine providing numerous physical and mental benefits, advertising that BANG can improve brain function, has anti-depressive effects, and helps build muscle.
The claim is for trade mark infringement, unfair competition, falseadvertising, cybersquatting, and other cause of actions before the Central District of California. In this post, the most interesting parts of Ryder Ripps’ answer, defence and counterclaim , filed on December 27, 2022 will be analyzed.
CV-21-00228-TUC-SHR, 2022 WL 3098042 (D. 4, 2022) Frequent IP claimant Lisa Frank is in court this time over a failed deal with a vegan cosmetics company, whose contract aspects I will ignore. Lanham Act falseadvertising: Were the statements “commercial advertising or promotion” even though not in a conventional ad?
4 th , 2022 WL 39839, No. 5, 2022) The court finds that, contrary to the district court’s holding, at least some of the underlying lawsuit’s allegations claimed that Vitamin Energy made disparaging statements about 5-hour Energy, thus triggering the insurer’s duty to defend under its “advertising injury” policy. Evanston Ins.
In mid-2022, Cape Law PC incorporated in Arizona and launched an interactive online platform using the marks CAPE and CAPE LAW. Despite various marks and online statements claiming that CLP is a law firm, it is [allegedly] actually a legal referral service that matches customers in need of legal services to attorneys that CLP contracts with.
2022 WL 3590329, No. 22, 2022) Nexo’s Crypto Credit service allows users to take out loans against cryptocurrency collateral. The falseadvertising parts: Jeong alleged that Nexo advertised to consumers that it does not own users’ collateral (e.g., The court now found the breach of contract claim sufficiently pled.
2022 WL 17218077, No. 2, 2022) Before the jury verdict in favor of Monster’s falseadvertising claim was this opinion resolving evidentiary issues. However, they fail to show that Monster dirtied its hands to make the falseadvertising claims now alleged against Defendants.” Monster Energy Co.
Top Shelf Golf, LLC, 2022 WL 834790, No. 21, 2022) Weird edge case! Motogolf bought online ads on a pay-per-click contract “wherein ads would stop appearing to others if they were clicked a certain number of times in a given period.” Motogolf.com, LLC v. 2:20-cv-00674-APG-EJY (D.
2022 WL 343911, No. 4, 2022) A rare plausible fraudulent concealment scenario to toll the limitations period! So too for breach of contract claims: CUTPA provides that “[a]n action under [CUTPA] may not be brought more than three years after the occurrence of a violation.” Nestlé Waters North America, Inc.,
2024) The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of FedEx’s falseadvertising claims (under the Lanham Act and Tennessee Consumer Protection Act), albeit on somewhat different grounds. Collectively they’re called “contracted service providers” (CSPs). Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. Route Consultant, Inc., 23-5456, F.4th
Target, 2022 WL 18027615, No. 30, 2022) Plaintiffs sued for breach of express warranty under New York and California law, violation of the New York General Business Law (“GBL”) §§ 349 and 350, and the usual California claims. Rodriguez v. 2982 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.
2022 WL 667780, No. 4, 2022) Brown Bottling alleged that it had the exclusive bottling, distribution, and sale rights for Pepsi & Dr. Pepper soft drinks in an exclusive geographic territory encompassing much of central and southern Mississippi, as well as two counties in Alabama. Brown Bottling Gp. Imperial Trading Co.,
Newton Group Transfers, LLC, 2022 WL 1652587, No. 4, 2022) (magistrate) I will confess that the main message I take from the cases in which timeshare companies are aggressively suing timeshare exit firms is that one should never buy a timeshare. 439 people with timeshare contracts with Diamond hired one of the defendant companies.
Roup, 2022 WL 17670418, No. 12, 2022) Plaintiffs sued defendants for copyright infringement, violation of the Lanham Act, breach of contract, and violation of unfair competition law; copyright and breach of contract claims survived a motion to dismiss but the others didn’t. Breach of contract claims survived.
DealMaker alleged that defendants stole its trade secrets and also alleged violation of state and federal falseadvertising law. DealMaker argued that its offers weren’t the same as Issuance’s so one-to-one comparisons were false, and that its fees don’t depend on a percentage of capital raised.
In June 2022, “SouthState documented the mutual agreement” reached by Qoins and SouthState that the banking relationship between them would terminate, effective July 20, 2022. The court mostly denied Qoins’ motion to dismiss the resulting claims, including breach of contract and libel.
Stubenrauch, 2022 WL 2793579, No. 15, 2022) The parties in this case are former business associates, which is one reason there are so many different claims. Falseadvertising: The allegations identified “merely describe the supposed underlying trademark infringement.” 3:21-cv-00545 (M.D.
2022 WL 2383722, No. 28, 2022) BD and its subsidiary (BD) sell urologic devices and supplies, including catheter trays, which compete with Medline’s. The court grouped the Lanham Act falseadvertising and New Jersey statutory and common law unfair competition claims together. Becton, Dickinson & Co. Medline Indus.,
MaddenCo owns Copyright Registration Number TX0009171151 entitled “The Tire Dealer System” with an effective registration date of August 26, 2022. Per Plaintiff’s website, MaddenCo is a privately held family business and has been for over 40 years. According to the complaint, both Defendants Reed and Darby were employed by MaddenCo.
2022 WL 2355481, No. 30, 2022) “This case began as a routine suit for breach of a noncompete provision in an employment contract. Lanham Act falseadvertising: Failing to delete email and voicemail accounts is not “commercial advertising or promotion.” At least there's something that doesn't?
2022 WL 103541, No. 11, 2022) Plaintiffs filed a putative class action “on behalf of themselves and persons who opted into Coinbase’s $1.2 Whether the court or the arbitrator would determine which contract applied was an issue “for judicial determination unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise.”
19-cv-2970, 2022 WL 486999 (ECT/DTS) (D. 17, 2022) NordicTrack allegedly can’t achieve or maintain the continuous horsepower defendants represented the treadmills were capable of. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., They needed to file an amended complaint specifying when they gave pre-suit notice, though.
2022 WL 4367597, No. 21, 2022) Demetres, a real estate salesperson/broker, alleged that Zillow violated the Lanham Act, the Sherman Act, and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and engaged in tortious interference with contractual relationships. Demetres v. Zillow, Inc., 3:21cv00802 (JBA) (D.
2022 WL 320952, No. Vohra Wound Physicians” is used to refer to their physician practice groups in marketing materials and in contracts with facilities. Wound Care Concepts, Inc. Vohra Health Services, P.A., 19-62078-CIV-SMITH (S.D. Defendants (with one exception) are physician practice groups and their management company.
2022 WL 3974259, No. 31, 2022) This is a lawsuit arising from Coinbase’s $1.2 Life insurance contracts are not “tangible chattels.” Marden-Kane, Inc., 21-cv-04539-SK (N.D. million Dogecoin (DOGE) sweepstakes in June 2021.
2:21-cv-09034-SB-PVC, 2022 WL 1843138 (C.D. 22, 2022) Plaintiffs used Omaze’s website to “donate” money to various charities and be entered for chances to win prizes. It contracts with Charities Aid Foundation of America, which in turn delivers donated funds to designated charities. Omaze, Inc.,
Tito & Tita Food Truck, LLC, 2022 WL 622234, No. 3, 2022) Plaintiffs alleged that they employed the individual defendants in part to manage social media advertising and promotion for plaintiffs’ baking businesses, aka La Baguette. Pan 4 America, LLC v. DLB-21-401 (D.
2022), the court of appeals reversed, though it did affirm the dismissal of warranty claims. The breach of warranty claims were properly dismissed because MacNaughton failed to allege proper notice and privity of contract. Relying on Int’l Code Council, Inc. UpCodes Inc., 4th 46 (2d Cir.
C20-1018-DGE, 2022 WL 1215529 (W.D. And the Patent Act dosen’t preempt “fraud/misrepresentation-based state or federal unfair competition laws, nor state contract and tortious interference laws, as they address conduct beyond mere infringement or noninfringement.” Studio 010 Inc. Digital Cashflow LLC, No.
2022 WL 912890, No. Nor did an arbitration provision in contracts for advertising after May 2018 defeat adequacy and typicality. DZ Reserve v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 3:18-cv-04978-JD (N.D. This was enough for reliance for UCL standing purposes.
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