Remove 2024 Remove Advertising Remove Branding Remove Brands
article thumbnail

"#1 Brand" claim was literally false because of apples-to-oranges comparison

43(B)log

10849 (LGS), 2024 WL 2853622 (S.D.N.Y. 4, 2024) Finding Zesty Paws’ “#1 Brand” claim literally false, the court grants a preliminary injunction despite Zesty Paws’ attempt to create a factual dispute about what a “brand” is. Based on the ordinary dictionary meaning of “brand,” Nutramax was a brand.

article thumbnail

New rules for online gambling advertising

Olartemoure Blog

ii) advertising investment ceilings were established for the operators. iii) operators must submit to COLJUEGOS each year an advertising investment plan that cannot exceed the defined ceilings. iv) advertising of games or practices not authorized by COLJUEGOS is prohibited. This resolution becomes effective on 1 January 2024.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

False patent marking claims survive even when Dastar bars false advertising claims based on "innovation"

43(B)log

2024 WL 629985, No. 30, 2024) (R&R) Recommendation: Dastar should block Qingdao’s Lanham Act false advertising counterclaims based on Lashify’s claim to be the originator of lash technology, but false patent marking counterclaims should survive. Lashify, Inc. Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., W-22-CV-00776-ADA-DTG, No.

article thumbnail

Dabur v. Dhruv Rathee: A Closure or Gateway for the Future? 

SpicyIP

Dabur alleged that these depictions were disparaging their trademarks, infringing their copyright, could mislead viewers and negatively impact their brand. Eventually, the parties agreed to settle the dispute and consequently, the Calcutta High Court, through its order dated June 18, 2024, disposed of the case and all related applications.

article thumbnail

calling an accepted Rule 68 offer a judgment of infringement could be defamatory

43(B)log

2024 WL 1051951No. 11, 2024) I have a long-running interest in Rule 68 offers of judgment, and this case involves an interaction with false advertising law! We are fiercely protective of the Crocs brand and our iconic DNA. Double Diamond Distribution Ltd. Crocs, Inc., 23-cv-01790-PAB-KAS (D.

article thumbnail

TTABlog Test: Are Backpacks, Wallets, and Purses Related to Cake Under Section 2(d)?

The TTABlog

Hostess Brands, owner of the registered mark SUZY Q'S for "cake," opposed the application of Holly Sue Williams to register the mark SUZYQ for "Backpacks; Wallets” and “purses," claiming a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). Hostess Brands, LLC v. 91272724 (April 18, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S.

article thumbnail

court allows Nike's legal theories and most of its expert testimony against StockX's resales/NFTs

43(B)log

StockX LLC, 2024 WL 3361411, No. Nike claims that, despite those efforts, StockX sold a number of Nike-branded shoes that were counterfeits. As for the positivity of the ads, “consumer surveys in false advertising cases commonly display the challenged advertisement.” Nike, Inc. 22-CV-0983 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.