Remove Advertising Remove Contracts Remove Design Remove False Advertising
article thumbnail

Retailer has standing to assert Lanham Act false advertising claims against its own supplier

43(B)log

Lynd advertised the Product as effective against the coronavirus. Ultimately, AHBP took an exclusive license to sell the product in Argentina, with purchasing and advertising/marketing spend minimums. the Lanham Act false advertising claim survived.

article thumbnail

Statements in Insider article were plausibly commercial advertising or promotion

43(B)log

4, 2022) Frequent IP claimant Lisa Frank is in court this time over a failed deal with a vegan cosmetics company, whose contract aspects I will ignore. LFI allegedly used the “concepts, designs and ideas” from GDI’s samples to launch a new line of products with a larger cosmetics company, Morphe. Insider Inc.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

YouTube Isn’t Liable for User Uploads of Animal Abuse Videos–Lady Freethinker v. YouTube

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Thus, Lady Freethinker sued YouTube for breach of contract and related claims. (A Rather than engaging this contract law issue directly, the court rules for YouTube on Section 230 grounds: Lady Freethinker’s claims ultimately seek to treat Google as the publisher or speaker of content provided by another information content provider.

article thumbnail

copying/explicit references let Roblox proceed with dubious (c) claim; Lego should be watching

43(B)log

Roblox sued for copyright infringement, false advertising, trademark infringement, false association and false designation of origin, trade dress infringement, intentional interference with contractual relations, breach of contract, and false advertising and unfair competition under California law.

Copying 94
article thumbnail

individualized smear campaign wasn't plausibly commercial advertising or promotion

43(B)log

Meredith alleged that Vacasa “has embarked on a smear campaign surgically targeted at [Plaintiff’s] homeowner customers, designed to unfairly snuff out that competition.” The court found that the alleged statements weren’t “commercial advertising” covered by the Lanham Act.

article thumbnail

selling allegedly stolen/converted merchandise isn't reverse passing off

43(B)log

False advertising: Plaintiffs didn’t allege that Nobelle altered the merchandise in any way; “instead, the false statement arises from implication, from the fact that Nobelle is selling products that are not theirs to sell and, in the case of ‘The Line’ items, products it does not have the authority to sell.”

article thumbnail

Local Medical Supply Store Sued for Selling Counterfeit Products

Indiana Intellectual Property Law

for trademark infringement, false advertising and patent infringement. The EMSCULPT is a non-invasive medical device designed to stimulate muscle contraction using electromagnetic energy. Indianapolis, Indiana –The Plaintiff, BTL Industries, Inc. filed suit against Plaintiff JV Medical Supplies, Inc.