Remove 2023 Remove Confidentiality Remove False Advertising Remove Trademark
article thumbnail

TIL: “Texas Tamale” Is an Enforceable Trademark–Texas Tamale v. CPUSA2

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

In an April 2023 summary judgment ruling , the plaintiff established that it “possesses the legally protectable, incontestable trademarks TEXAS TAMALE and TEXAS TAMALE COMPANY.” The court said that the trademark owner had been using the trademark since 1985 and registered the trademark in 2006.

Trademark 101
article thumbnail

Internal Search Results Aren’t Trademark Infringing–PEM v. Peninsula

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This is a case involving a trademark owner and a competitive keyword advertiser. The trademark owner memorably (and ridiculously) characterized the rival as engaging in “keyword conquesting,” a term I encourage you never to use. The court already sent that trademark claim to the jury ( my blog post on that ruling ).

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

claims about legality of insurance service are falsifable

43(B)log

Heuberger, 2023 WL 5334192, No. 18, 2023) (magistrate) Route is a package tracking company that provides shipping insurance to e-commerce merchants. False advertising: The comments about Route were opinion and not actionable under the Lanham Act. Route App, Inc. 2:22-cv-00291-TS-JCB (D.

article thumbnail

More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law v. Bye, Goff

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Kudos to Nicolet Law for surviving the motion to dismiss, but I’m wondering if it will ultimately regret filing this lawsuit–either because its trademark gets busted or because it made a federal case out of nothing. For more background on competitive keyword advertising by lawyers, see this article. 2023 WL 3340214 (W.D.

Law 94
article thumbnail

hashtags are plausibly infringing; sales claims plausibly false based on P's own history of sales

43(B)log

2023 WL 3046592, No. 21, 2023) In two opinions on the same day, the court dealt with various IP/false advertising claims brought by one litter box seller against another. Smarty Pear allegedly used confidential information to inject the market with a new—and virtually identical—automated litter box: the Leo’s Loo.

article thumbnail

When Do Inbound Call Logs Show Consumer Confusion?–Adler v McNeil

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The defendants bought competitive keyword ads on Adler’s trademarks, which Adler objected to. The district court initially dismissed Adler’s trademark claims , but the Fifth Circuit unfortunately revived the claims citing initial interest confusion (UGH). McNeil Consultants LLC, 2023 WL 5600128 (N.D. July 27, 2023).

article thumbnail

Court Denies Injunction in Competitive Keyword Ad Lawsuit–Nursing CE Central v. Colibri

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The plaintiff has a trademark registration for the “Nursing CE Central” mark for providing continuing education for nurses. A rival, Colibri, displayed in the trademark in its Google keyword ads, but it claims it has stopped doing so after the lawsuit was filed. . ” Actual confused. “Undetermined.” Not relevant.