Remove Advertising Remove False Advertising Remove Marketing
article thumbnail

game spat expands beyond false advertising to TM and (c)

43(B)log

Skillz sued its competitor Papaya, alleging false advertising under federal and state law. Skillz allegedly markets its games as being uniquely fair and trustworthy with a badge indicating it is Committed to Fair Play and a claim that it will [m]atch [users] with real players of equal skill in its games. Skillz Platform Inc.

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. ” Dawgs brief.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Examining the Circuit Split on Preliminary Injunctions in False Advertising Post-eBay

IP Watchdog

In responding to the unprecedented COVID-19 challenges, companies around the world are rushing to capitalize on the current crisis by advertising the effectiveness of their products in containing the virus spread. As fear and anxiety proliferate during this pandemic, fraudulent or false advertisements also surge and explode.

article thumbnail

ambiguity over who was first African-American bourbon distiller in Kentucky dooms false advertising claim

43(B)log

Brough Brothers alleged that Fresh Bourbon falsely advertised that Fresh Bourbon is the first black-owned bourbon distillery in Kentucky, and made other related claims. Thus, the actual statement wasnt literally false, given the Senate resolution, even if the resolution was drafted by Fresh Bourbons representatives.

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. As the court says later, “it seems unlikely that an Internet user who reads defendant’s advertisements would believe that they belong to or are endorsed by plaintiffs.”

article thumbnail

plaintiff has standing to seek injunctive relief against allegedly falsely advertised penile implant

43(B)log

The Ninth Circuit has held: “[i]n some cases, the threat of future harm may be the consumer’s plausible allegations that she will be unable to rely on the product’s advertising or labeling in the future, and so will not purchase the product although she would like to.”

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.