Remove 2024 Remove Advertising Remove Branding Remove Marketing
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. Nutramax and Zesty Paws are direct competitors in the pet supplement market. Nutramax Labs.,

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.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Reusing Social Media Photos for Ads? Be Careful!–Khachatryan v. 1 Hotel

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The photo depicts two children (“Brave” is the one on the right) at the 1 Hotel in West Hollywood wearing the hotel’s branded robes. Other arguments fail because “there is value in Minor Plaintiffs’ image and likeness, which Defendants then used for the purpose of commercial advertising and sales. Implications.

article thumbnail

New guidelines for trademark notoriety

Olartemoure Blog

0330 of 2024. Some argue that this precedent is excessive, as notorious marks are unlikely to lose their status in 5 years, given that notoriety is built up over decades of market presence, advertising investment and consumer loyalty.

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! The parties compete in the shoe market. We are fiercely protective of the Crocs brand and our iconic DNA. Double Diamond Distribution Ltd. Crocs, Inc.,

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.