Remove Advertising Remove Designs Remove False Advertising Remove Reporting
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.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Noncommercial speakers can be liable for contributory false advertising

43(B)log

25, 2022) I know it probably seems sometimes like I approve of every expansive use of false advertising law, but sometimes even I find an aggressive position to go too far. The report concluded that the Italian formulation qualifies both as “GRAS” and as a “medical food” under US law, allegedly giving credence to these claims. [I

article thumbnail

Amazon escapes liability for its Brand Registry advertising

43(B)log

21, 2023) Deetsch alleged that he owned design patents for CPAP pillow products, which the Lei defendants infringed. They also allegedly used Deetch’s image in ads and on packaging, and allegedly falsely claimed on Amazon that their pillow products “were designed in the United States but are manufactured in China.”

article thumbnail

Using dominant competitor's part names/numbers for comparison isn't false advertising, TM infringement, or (c) infringement

43(B)log

15, 2023) Simpson sued its competitor MiTek for using Simpson part numbers for structural connectors/fasteners for use in the construction industry in its catalogs/other promotional material; the court here, after a nonjury trial before the magistrate judge, rather comprehensively rejects its false advertising, trademark, and copyright claims. (It

article thumbnail

two opinions send "false advertising of certification mark" claim to jury

43(B)log

The plaintiffs alleged that the stamps themselves were “a powerful form of advertising because they allow the Brazilian plywood companies to market their products as conforming to an important American safety standard.” pictures of not-good plywood from case Plaintiffs alleged both direct and contributory false advertising.

article thumbnail

Lexmark allows direct and contributory false advertising claims against certifier

43(B)log

The stamps thus allegedly operate as powerful advertising, allowing Brazilian plywood companies to market their products as conforming to an important American safety standard. As for the contributory false advertising claim, it too was well pled.