article thumbnail

Serious Comparative Advertising: Broadening the Definition

SpicyIP

We’re pleased to bring you a guest post by Sangita Sharma, looking into the law around comparative advertisements in India. Serious Comparative Advertising: Broadening the Definition. It allowed the advertisement but asked the company to remove the reference to the detergent soap. Sangita Sharma.

article thumbnail

Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute False Advertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet v. Troia

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Also, there should not be a “use in commerce” when the advertiser (here, Troia) doesn’t actually offer any goods or services in the marketplace. ” This definition of a service is an obvious tautology, and it’s also obviously in tension with the First Amendment. That’s what gripers do.

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

Harpic v. Domex Advertisement: Product Disparagement or Nominative Fair Use?

SpicyIP

Domex Advertisement: Product Disparagement or Nominative Fair Use? An image of the comparative advertisement launched by Domex, wherein Domex explicitly asks which toilet cleaner fights bad smell for longer and makes a tick mark against Domex, with Harpic as another option next to it. Legal Position on Comparative Advertisement.

Fair Use 105
article thumbnail

Second Circuit Tells Trademark Owners to Stop Suing Over Competitive Keyword Advertising–1-800 Contacts v. Warby Parker

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Fifteen years ago, courts generally avoided categorical pronouncements about the legitimacy of competitive keyword advertising. The message from the Second Circuit is plain: stop bringing competitive keyword advertising cases. This ruling doesn’t address the scenario where the advertiser’s ad copy references the trademark.

article thumbnail

Disgorgement in a noncomparative false advertising case: doctrinal drift?

43(B)log

This allowed McCormick to advertise what seemed like an attractive lower price and charge more. Thus, for disgorgement of profits, a plaintiff need only show the defendant’s “sales of the allegedly falsely advertised products,” after which the burden shifts to the defendant to prove “any costs or deductions.” Edriver Inc.,

article thumbnail

Piracy Advertising Researchers Fall Victim to Ransomware Attacks

TorrentFreak

The Digital Citizens Alliance ( DCA ) shared some new research that it carried out in partnership with piracy advertising expert White Bullet and cybersecurity outfit Unit 221B. However, with varying methodologies and definitions of ‘malicious’ it’s not easy to compare the findings. New Pirate Site Malware Research.

article thumbnail

10th Circuit endorses presumption of Lanham Act false advertising injury in mostly two-player market

43(B)log

Vitamins Online sued Heartwise under the Lanham Act and Utah’s Unfair Competition Law for false advertising about the ingredients of its competitive nutritional supplements and manipulating those products’ Amazon reviews. NatureWise’s products advertised that they met the same Dr. Oz-endorsed requirements. Heartwise, Inc.,