Remove Advertising Remove Contracts Remove False Advertising Remove Licensing
article thumbnail

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

43(B)log

In summer 2020, AHBP began negotiating with the Lynd defendants for the exclusive license to market and sell a surface disinfectant/cleaner known as “Bioprotect 500” in Argentina. Lynd advertised the Product as effective against the coronavirus. the Lanham Act false advertising claim survived.

article thumbnail

Another "buy" button lawsuit over digital licenses continues

43(B)log

15, 2024) This putative class action alleged that Amazon overcharged and “[d]eceived consumers by misrepresenting that it was selling them Digital Content when, in fact, it was really only licensing it to them[.]” The court disagreed: there’s a plausible difference in value between owning outright versus purchasing a revocable license.

Licensing 112
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

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. To say we are disappointed by the events that transpired as a result of this license is an understatement. CV-21-00228-TUC-SHR, 2022 WL 3098042 (D.

article thumbnail

Pandemic ski resort closures allow both contract and advertising claims

43(B)log

25, 2021) Unlike the education cases so far, this pandemic case sustains both consumer protection and contract claims. Defendants first argued that passes didn’t not qualify as “goods or services” under the CLRA, but were only temporary licenses, with services provided only ancillary to the license. Alterra Mountain Co.,

article thumbnail

claims about legality of insurance service are falsifable

43(B)log

Route sued for breach of contract, commercial disparagement and defamation per se, intentional tortious interference with contractual relations, false advertising, and contributory trademark infringement. The breach of contract claim survived. Heuberger was a Route customer who then launched a competitor, Navidium.

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

Alleging sponsorship/endorsement confusion can't defeat clear nominative fair use

43(B)log

It does so at the Rose Bowl Stadium under three contracts with Pasadena, including a Master License Agreement, Trademark Agreement, and Trademark Consent Agreement. This also got rid of the breach of contract claim, which was based on the alleged trademark infringement and false advertising.