article thumbnail

plausible critiques of "clinically proven" suffice to plead false advertising

43(B)log

3d -, 2024 WL 402925, No. 2, 2024) Noriega alleged that Abbott’s PediaSure falsely advertised that it was “[c]linically proven to help kids grow.” Abbott Laboratories, F.Supp.3d 4014 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. The complaint made methodological critiques of Abbott’s favored studies, which weren’t implausible.

article thumbnail

Reminder on Call for Papers: Trademark and Unfair Competition Scholarship Roundtable 2024

43(B)log

The Roundtable is designed to be a forum for the discussion of current trademark, false advertising, and right of publicity scholarship, covering a range of methodologies, topics, and perspectives. The Roundtable will be held on Friday, October 18, 2024. Submissions must be of full drafts in Microsoft word format.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

CFP: Trademark and Unfair Competition Scholarship Roundtable 2024

43(B)log

The Roundtable is designed to be a forum for the discussion of current trademark, false advertising, and right of publicity scholarship, covering a range of methodologies, topics, and perspectives. The Roundtable will be held on Friday, October 18, 2024. Submissions must be of full drafts in Microsoft word format.

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.,

article thumbnail

Falsely advertising "ghost guns" as legal in NY is actionable

43(B)log

Arm or Ally, LLC, 2024 WL 756474, No. 23, 2024) The AG sued sellers of “unfinished frames and receivers” — also known as “80% lowers” or “receiver blanks” —designed to evade restrictions on gun sales. Defendants contended that marketing unfinished frames and receivers as “legal” was protected by the First Amendment. It was not.

article thumbnail

over dissent, 6th Circuit holds that large player in fragmented market could show proximate cause under Lexmark

43(B)log

4th -, 2024 WL 164976, Nos. 16, 2024) Over a dissent in relevant part, the court revived plaintiff Ultra Bond’s Lanham Act claim relating to vehicle glass repair and replacement (VGRR). Safelite is the VGRR market leader: in 2016, it had 35.4% of the market; its closest competitor had just 3%. Campfield v. Safelite Gp.,

article thumbnail

This Case Keeps Wrecking Internet Law–Enigma v. Malwarebytes

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

After remand, the case went back to the Ninth Circuit, which held that anti-threat classifications might be Lanham Act false advertising. Bolger Factor 1: Advertising the first Bolger factor—whether the statements are an advertisement—to fall slightly in favor of the conclusion that the challenged designations are commercial speech.

Law 59