Remove Advertising Remove Contracts Remove False Advertising Remove Reporting
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

handful of bad Amazon reviews make Energizer's false advertising claims plausible

43(B)log

16, 2021) Along with breach of contract and tortious interference claims, Energizer alleged that MTA falsely advertised by selling batteries with Energizer’s mark and then by fulfilling orders with products different from those advertised and shipping batteries to consumers that were “used, aged, or tampered-with.”

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Claims that timeshare exit services are legal and effective were not puffery

43(B)log

11, 2021) Another timeshare versus timeshare exit false advertising case. Marketing Defendants allegedly falsely advertise timeshare exit services by promoting a legitimate process to exit timeshare contracts. First, the court rejected the argument that Rule 9(b) applied to the false advertising claims.

article thumbnail

Text of Complaint in X Corp v. Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) in CD Cal, regarding not-for-profit’s reports on Twitter disinformation policies

LexBlog IP

The Center for Countering Digital Hate is a not for profit organization that publishes reports on among other things, hate speech and disinformation on social media. CCDH urges brands to not advertise on sites that promote disinformation. X Corp suggests that these efforts have resulted in reduced advertising levels on Twitter.

article thumbnail

individualized smear campaign wasn't plausibly commercial advertising or promotion

43(B)log

The court found that the alleged statements weren’t “commercial advertising” covered by the Lanham Act. It “began a campaign to systematically contact and try to poach business from Homeowners under exclusive contract with [Plaintiff]. The question was whether the alleged misrepresentations were “sufficiently disseminated.”

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

9th Circuit courts are very committed to letting juries hear testimony about surveys

43(B)log

2, 2022) Before the jury verdict in favor of Monster’s false advertising claim was this opinion resolving evidentiary issues. They weren’t directly asked about the phrase “Super Creatine,” whether participants had prior experiences with or opinions of Bang, or whether they had seen Vital’s advertising in the market.