This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
This one-hour CLE session focuses on defending against false advertising and trademark claims, providing practical strategies for brand owners facing allegations of misleading advertising or trademark infringement. By: Greenberg Glusker LLP
Intellectual property owners who can't justify the cost of trademark, copyright or advertisinglitigation in the current uncertain economic climate should consider less expensive brand-protection options, such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's uniform takedown procedure for online copyright infringement, says Michael Justus at Katten.
Fifteen years ago, courts generally avoided categorical pronouncements about the legitimacy of competitive keyword advertising. Warby Parker, part of 1-8oo Contacts’ irrepressible efforts to revive the litigation genre. The message from the Second Circuit is plain: stop bringing competitive keyword advertising cases.
Protection of trademarks is important for the following reasons: Preservation of brand identity Prevention of customer confusion Business investment protection Fair Competition Innovation in branding Famous infringement cases within the areas of intellectual property underline complex legal issues and stakes involved. Dongre and Ors.
Negative exposure in the media has direct implications for image and branding. Additional risk of polluting or even displacing otherwise positive articles, could jeopardize what amounts to free advertising worth millions of dollars. Even for Nintendo, suing every infringer isn’t just impractical.
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. The dispute turned on what a “brand” is; Zesty Paws argued that Nutramax was not a brand, but Cosequin etc. Nutramax Labs.,
Even though this is an obviously stupid legal theory that wasn’t worth anyone’s time or money, Edible turned to an Atlanta litigation boutique (shoutout to Bondurant Mixson & Elmore LLP!!!) More Posts About Keyword Advertising. Competitive Keyword Advertising Claim Fails–Reflex Media v. They could not.
However, with scant followup media attention, this lawsuit (filed in August, dismissed in December) rocket-docketed to failure faster than remanufactured printer cartridges run out of ink. * * * Note: The litigation GoFundMe page is still up. They have raised a total of $150 of their $500k goal. This argument has failed so many times.
This case highlights the intersection of trademark law and e-commerce regulation, raising questions about the accountability of online marketplaces in protecting brand integrity. of facilitating the sale of counterfeit BHPC products, tarnishing the brands image and causing substantial financial loss. and Amazon Seller Services Pvt.
In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig., 30, 2025) This is a ruling on 19 motions to exclude expert testimony in this case, which is mostly an antitrust case; I will focus only on some false advertising-relevant rulings. brewer works only with Keurig brand or licensed pods) but some did not (e.g.,
This primarily includes three groups of people: Those who sell costume elements on sites such as Etsy, those that use costumes in advertising or promotion and those that operated haunted attractions. They are part fashion, part artwork, part branding and part character. This isn’t to say there’s been no litigation in this area.
Matlock alleges that he was approached by Eastern Standard in 2021 to explore expanding its existing pretzel line with Liege waffles, and the two companies began exploring co-branding opportunities. Burgundian alleges that Eastern Standard abruptly terminated the parties’ relationship and threatened litigation against Burgundian.
The brand name and codes play an important role in the management of competition. Inevitably competitors will try to capture some of the market shares of any brand that discovers a lucrative market opportunity. Protecting brand identifiers is the way to avoid the possibility of consumer confusion as to the source or origin of a brand.
22, 2021) This case should be of interest to people working on contextual advertising. Rolling Stone litigation, though the facts are more internet-oriented. Common sense tells us that this is not a simple advertisement.” “It It is a work of fashion journalism that, like every fashion magazine, happens to contain advertisements.”
Las Vegas Skydiving Adventures offers tandem skydiving under the “Fyrosity” brand. Melwani sells products under the “Royal Silk” brand. More Posts About Keyword Advertising. Google. * Competitive Keyword Advertising Claim Fails–Reflex Media v. It has never offered its services through Groupon.
Our technology and internet lawyers are constantly contacted by Amazon sellers trying to protect their brand names and products on the Amazon marketplace. One of the most common brand protection issues involves gray market sellers and counterfeits on Amazon. There’s both good news and bad news.
Facebook argued it wasn’t liable for the third-party ads because “it did not create or sponsor the advertisement; therefore, it was simply a mere conduit for its distribution.” In the publicity rights chapter from our advertising law casebook , defendants lose every case we cover. Statutory Liability. ” Ugh.
Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a petition asking the justices to weigh in on whether the Lanham Act prohibits “the unauthorized use of a celebrity’s persona advertising third party brands with logos in a commercial motion picture as a trademark infringement?” in Hollywood (the film), written and directed by Quentin Tarantino.
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. However, the Noerr-Pennington doctrine didn’t apply to this case at this stage of the litigation.
In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Naloxone) Antitrust Litig., That difficulty is not really unique, but the court is forced to make distinctions because of the unwarranted exclusion of many false advertising claims from antitrust consideration.) 3d -, MDL NO. 2445 13-MD-2445, CIV. 16-5073, 2022 WL 3588024 (E.D.
Aditya is an attorney at Ira Law and represents Google in trademark litigation relating to keyword advertising. As a threshold matter, the Court holds that when advertisers provide keywords on Google’s Ad program, they “use” the trademark “in advertising” under Section 29(6). DRS Logistics.
However, “[b]ecause meta tags direct internet traffic and are invisible to the internet user (absent the user taking additional steps), meta tags are similar to keyword advertising” (citing a non-precedential metatags opinion from 20 years ago). More Posts About Keyword Advertising. Distraction is insufficient. OK, I guess.
Dabur alleged that these depictions were disparaging their trademarks, infringing their copyright, could mislead viewers and negatively impact their brand. Way Forward These incidents raise pertinent questions about the regulatory frameworks governing advertisements. Anchor ( para 64 )).
Atari’s copyright infringement lawsuit against State Farm advances, underscoring the importance of careful clearance in advertising. In addition to copyright infringement, Atari brought claims for business disparagement, false information and advertising, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment.
Compared to most social media ownership disputes, this case has featured extensive litigation, including an appeal, revised injunction, a contempt motion, and now, a motion to modify the scope of the preliminary injunction. The dispute is interesting in many ways–especially the fact that it’s been this heavily litigated.
This case involves Jim Adler, a/k/a the “Texas Hammer,” a Texas lawyer who has spent $100M+ on advertising to build his brand. For background on the legal battles over keyword advertising by lawyers, see this article. Bye, Goff * Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v.
This is a case involving a trademark owner and a competitive keyword advertiser. That’s certainly true for high-profile and well-advertised consumer items like fast food chains, mass-market phones, and major car labels, but is it true in this particular niche? Google * Competitive Keyword Advertising Claim Fails–Reflex Media v.
Fashion is a brand-driven industry, and few brands in the fashion space carry the same cachet as Chanel. But how much control do brands like Chanel have over merchants who resell name-brand items in the secondary market? The answer, according to a federal jury in the Southern District of New York, is “Quite a bit.”
Docket Navigator is a valuable resource, and the place to go if you want to keep track of new patent litigation filings or want to know what is happening in particular cases, how your judge has historically handled a particular type of motion, or a particular plaintiff’s litigation history. Adim8, LLC v. DoorDash, Inc.
The decisions in the first category , i.e., Top 10 IP Judgments/Orders (Topicality/Impact) reflect those that we thought were important from a topical point of view and were covered by the media in some way owing to the importance of parties litigating or the issue being considered or for impact on industry and innovation/creativity ecosystem etc.
Punchbowl argued, as a threshold matter, that the Rogers analysis had no application because First Amendment protections do “not extend to ‘the brand name of [a] commercial enterprise.’” The post Ninth Circuit: Commercial Brand Names Can Be Expressive Speech appeared first on Global IP & Technology Law Blog. 21-55881, in the U.S.
The plaintiffs argued that the in Parle Agro’s label, “For the Bold” was prominently displayed and emphasis was given to the contested tagline in all the advertising campaigns. As evidence, advertisements featuring on Parle’s Facebook Page on 28 th November 2020 and 3 rd January 2021 were presented before the court.
Read on for his take on what this means for future trademark litigations. Aditya is an attorney at Ira Law and represents Google in trademark litigation relating to keyword advertising. Jan Vishwas Bill 2023: Small businesses, competition and public health set up to lose?
As such a proprietary right is granted by way of registration of a trademark, whereby the owner of the mark or other parties granted a license to use the brand has the exclusive right to use it for the purpose of making money. Under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, Pidilite Industries Ltd. FEVIKWIK, FEVICOL, FEVISTIK).
The panellists discussed the Unwired Planet litigation [see The IPKat post here ], the ETSI IPR Policy, and, indeed, what a standard even means. Other Chijioke also commented on the decision of the in Bliss Brands (Pty) Ltd v Advertising Regulatory Board NPC & Others, issued by a High Court in South Africa.
False Advertising. In general, courts should not permit a false advertising claim based on a “safe” representation where the representation is rendered untrue by third-party content. The plaintiffs disavowed a claim based solely on Apple’s “safe” representation. eBay case from 2008. Apple , and Evans v.
Shingle Savers counterclaimed, alleging, among other things, false advertising under the Lanham Act and violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Lanham Act/ODTPA claims: First, the court declined to hold that Rule 9(b) applied to Lanham Act false advertising claims, which don’t require fraud.
Introduction The brand ‘Haldiram’ has been synonymous with various savouries in India for many years, especially their legendary bhujia. A recent ruling by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court elevated the brand Haldiram as a well-known trademark. 3500 crores were the advertisement expenses and Rs. 5000 were surpassed for sales.
A couple of specifics: The false advertising claims don’t escape 230: “Had those third-party users refrained from posting harmful content, Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendants falsely advertised and misrepresented their applications’ safety would not be cognizable.” ICS Provider. ” Publisher/Speaker Claims.
This appears to be a SAD Scheme case involving Squishmallows, a stuffed animals brand. The brand owner, Kelly Toys, sued 90 e-commerce merchants in a sealed complaint and got a TRO. For unclear reasons, Kelly Toys expanded the litigation to add online marketplaces Alibaba and AliExpress as defendants. This is an unusual move.
According to Wanjiru, Machakos University infringed her intellectual property rights, image rights, right to privacy and human dignity by using her photograph (taken by the university during Wanjiru’s graduation) in advertising and marketing of the computer packages courses it offers.
Here, the court dismisses the fraud claim on statute of limitations grounds and the Lanham Act claim because of a mismatch between the commercial advertising and promotion alleged and the falsity alleged, but allows injurious falsehood/product disparagement claims to proceed. LLT pled that it discovered the defendants fraud by match[ing].
” On remand, after 2 more years of litigation, the district court has again dismissed the lawsuit, this time on its lack of merits. Lanham Act False Advertising. Internet Brands. Enigma claimed it was false for Malwarebytes to call its programs “malicious,” “threats,” and PUPs. In Asurvio v.
Five years ago , several of the world’s largest entertainment industry companies teamed up to create a brand new anti-piracy coalition. In addition, advertising companies and payment processors help to cut off revenue to pirate sites and services, when appropriate. Collaborating with Governments and Law Enforcement.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content