Remove 2024 Remove False Advertising Remove Marketing
article thumbnail

unexplained "3x more cutting power" could be false advertising when comparator was unexpected

43(B)log

22-cv-540-jdp, 2024 WL 3936444 (W.D. 26, 2024) The parties compete in the hand-held gardening tool market. Still, conduct before Woodland entered the market was relevant to the claim. Fiskars advertises some of its products as having “up to 3x more cutting power.” Fiskars Finland OY AB v. Woodland Tools Inc.,

article thumbnail

when weak TM claims do better than seemingly strong false advertising claims

43(B)log

Int’l, 2024 WL 4553279, F.Supp.3d May 20, 2024) Note: A jury found Kaijet liable for design patent and copyright infringement after this opinion, but rejected the TM claims, which I guess says something about a jury’s ability to distinguish claims. Kaijet Technol. 1:18-cv-05385-SDG (N.D. It was insufficient to provide: 1.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Measuring device (c)able under Star Athletica; ignoring Dastar, court also allows false advertising claim

43(B)log

Kitchen Cube LLC, 2024 WL 1829620, No. 17, 2024) Leszczynski invented a measuring cube that combines various measuring volumes into a single cubical structure. Kitchen Cube cube Leszczynski sued for (1) copyright infringement; (2) violation of Creative Commons license terms; and (3) false advertising and misrepresentation.

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

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

Damages questions preclude certifying a Lanham Act false advertising plaintiff class

43(B)log

SmileDirectClub, LLC, 2024 WL 559235, No. 12, 2024) The court denied certification to a proposed class of dentists/orthodontists over SDC’s allegedly false advertising for its plastic aligners/teledentistry services, based on difficulties identifying harm/causation. 3:19-cv-00845 (M.D.

article thumbnail

even after default, court may constrain recovery in competitive market

43(B)log

C 20-07414 WHA, 2024 WL 4351861 (N.D. 30, 2024) I don’t usually blog default judgments, but this one was interesting. Plaintiff was required to plead false advertising with specificity, then prove it.” This is a false advertising case, not a counterfeiting case. KHN Solutions LLC v.