Remove Advertising Remove Brands Remove False Advertising Remove Presentation
article thumbnail

California Supreme Court reaffirms strict liability for false advertising in Serova

43(B)log

The statements were “commercial advertising meant to sell a product, and generally there ‘can be no constitutional objection to the suppression of commercial messages that do not accurately inform the public.’” The First Amendment has long coexisted with no-fault false advertising laws. The California Supreme Court reversed.

article thumbnail

facially plausible false advertising claim can be added to TM complaint

43(B)log

Copper Compression Brands LLC, 2021 WL 5013799, No. 27, 2021) Ideavillage sued CCB for trademark infringement and false designation of origin related to Ideavillage’s “Copper Fit” line of copper-infused compression garments. Here, the court granted leave to amend to add a false advertising claim. 4604 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

IIC decision also says some things about false advertising: materiality may not be presumed from literal falsity

43(B)log

I won’t say much about that, though I do have a big question, but there are also false advertising aspects of the case. Examples included website links that presented Plaintiffs’ trademarks as identical phrases (e.g. Baxter; 996 F.3d 3d 925 (8 th Cir. How much of this is even relevant for determining whether IIC exists?

article thumbnail

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

43(B)log

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.,

article thumbnail

patent misrepresentations to prospective dealer could be false advertising under Dastar/Lexmark

43(B)log

Shingle Savers counterclaimed, alleging, among other things, false advertising under the Lanham Act and violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Moreover, the alleged misrepresentations concerned the nature of Roof Maxx’s own roofing Product and were presented in official marketing material and conversations.

article thumbnail

Gerber's Good Start troubles continue

43(B)log

As for the implied FDA endorsement: (1) A coupon affixed to certain GSG containers described it as “the first and only formula brand made from 100% whey protein partially hydrolyzed, and that meets the criteria for a FDA Qualified Health Claim for atopic dermatitis.” I’m not clear how a reasonable jury could find otherwise.)

article thumbnail

WIPIP session 4: ™ & Consumers

43(B)log

Mary Katherine Amerine, Reasonably Careless Consumers in TM & False Advertising How do courts treat consumers in TM and false advertising cases? False advertising uses v different framework: consider the challenged ad as a whole, including disclaimers and qualifying language. Beer Nuts, Bulls’ Eye v.