article thumbnail

Retailer has standing to assert Lanham Act false advertising claims against its own supplier

43(B)log

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 false advertising claim survived. AHBP LLC v. More surprisingly (perhaps the court wanted to be sure it retained jurisdiction regardless of diversity?),

article thumbnail

False advertising about a bankrupt competitor doesn't violate the automatic stay

43(B)log

2022 WL 5245633, No. 6, 2022) The district court reverses the bankruptcy court ruling ( discussed here ) that held that false advertising 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.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Monster wins permanent injunction against VPX in false advertising case

43(B)log

12, 2023) Following a large verdict for Monster on false advertising claims, this opinion discusses extensively the requirements for injunctive relief in false advertising cases. But Defendants have brought on themselves these unfortunate consequences through their false advertising.”

article thumbnail

sending emails under former employees' names may be reverse passing off

43(B)log

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.

article thumbnail

Clone wars: truthful statements about cloned horses don't constitute false association

43(B)log

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.

article thumbnail

failure to properly allege falsity dooms FedEx at 6th Circuit

43(B)log

2024) The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of FedEx’s false advertising 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

article thumbnail

Bank has Lanham Act standing to assert disparagement claim against former customer (itself a service provider)

43(B)log

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.