Remove Advertising Remove Design Remove False Advertising
article thumbnail

False Patent Marking as False Advertising: Overcoming Dastar

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch The Federal Circuit is set to consider the use of terms like “patented,” “proprietary,” and “exclusive” in commercial advertising can be actionable under § 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act when their use is not entirely accurate. Crocs largely prevailed in those actions.

article thumbnail

when weak TM claims do better than seemingly strong false advertising claims

43(B)log

May 20, 2024) Note: A jury found Kaijet liable for design patent and copyright infringement after this opinion, but rejected the TM claims, which I guess says something about a jury’s ability to distinguish claims. Email communications repeatedly referenced Sanho’s design, and expressed a desire to use similar elements in its own product.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

unexplained "3x more cutting power" could be false advertising when comparator was unexpected

43(B)log

Most of the claims failed on summary judgment, but part of Woodland’s claim against Fiskars for false advertising, based on Fiskars’s statements about the cutting power of its tools, and some of its statements that certain products were designed in the United States, did create factual issues for trial.

article thumbnail

Another API (c) case with false advertising and contract claims too

43(B)log

Defendants allegedly copied key components of Trackman’s copyrighted software and falsely suggested, in promotions and advertisements, that defendants were authorized to use the well-known courses in their game. Although the court dismissed a contract claim, copyright and false advertising claims survived.

article thumbnail

False advertising and TM infringement receive very different damages treatment: case in point

43(B)log

17, 2023) Another entry in the “courts treat Lanham Act false advertising very differently than Lanham Act trademark infringement, despite identical damages provisions” line. CareDx sued Natera for false advertising. Natera, Inc., 19-662-CFC, 2023 WL 4561059 (D. Natera made superiority claims for its Prospera.

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

Measuring device (c)able under Star Athletica; ignoring Dastar, court also allows false advertising claim

43(B)log

He posted the Cube design and 3D print files on Thingiverse.com, the largest site for 3D print objects. Kitchen Cube also stated on its website that “we designed and manufactured every kitchen measuring device in one easy to use gadget.” False advertising: Only ok against Kitchen Cube.