This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
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.
Skillz sued its competitor Papaya, alleging falseadvertising under federal and state law. That is, falseadvertising was sufficiently pled as to statements that games on Skillzs platforms did not use bots, matched players evenly, and allowed users to withdraw funds at any time. Skillz Platform Inc. Papaya Gaming, Ltd.,
14, 2021) Dawgs alleged that Crocs falsely marketed its shoes in violation of the Lanham Act by advertising Croslite, the foam material that Crocs shoes are made from, as “patented,” “proprietary,” and “exclusive.” Effervescent, Inc., 2021 WL 4170997, No. 06-cv-00605-PAB-KMT, No. 16-cv-02004-PAB-KMT (D.
17, 2023) Another entry in the “courts treat Lanham Act falseadvertising very differently than Lanham Act trademark infringement, despite identical damages provisions” line. CareDx sued Natera for falseadvertising. Natera, Inc., 19-662-CFC, 2023 WL 4561059 (D. Natera made superiority claims for its Prospera.
Here, plaintiffs alleged that TFL and Nelson had actual knowledge: they knew how the fraudulent scheme worked, that they were shipping products sold using deceptive and unfair advertising, that the ads and websites were false and misleading, and the nature of the tortious conduct being committed by Beyond Global and Doe defendants.
12, 2023) Following a large verdict for Monster on falseadvertising claims, this opinion discusses extensively the requirements for injunctive relief in falseadvertising cases. A lost customer may constitute the loss of a relationship with a customer as well as reference to other potential customers.”
22, 2022) The court here allows an antitrust claim to proceed based in part on allegedly false/misleading statements because they form part of the alleged anticompetitive product-hopping scheme and because the unique characteristics of the drug market make market-based responses to falseadvertising difficult.
May 17, 2023) The court grants these timeshare plaintiffs’ motion for a bench trial, ruling that the Seventh Amendment doesn’t guarantee a jury trial in a falseadvertising case where the plaintiffs seek only equitable remedies. Timeshare Lawyers P.A., 2023 WL 3510374, No. 20-24681-Civ-Scola (S.D. Hard Candy, Ltd.
7, 2022) The court upheld a contempt finding based on an underlying falseadvertising claim. Also, a press release that discussed separate litigation in Italy about who owned VSL#3’s bacterial strains, unfairly compared VSL#3 and Visbiome referred to plaintiffs’ “aggressive efforts to sell their competing, generic probiotic product.”
Although in the copyright decision, the court made reference to “rather surprising oversights,” UpCodes corrected issues when notified by ICC. UpCodes, Inc., 2021 WL 1236106, Nos. 6261 (VM) & 20 Civ. 4316 (VM) (S.D.N.Y.
Roblox sued for copyright infringement, falseadvertising, trademark infringement, false association and false designation of origin, trade dress infringement, intentional interference with contractual relations, breach of contract, and falseadvertising and unfair competition under California law.
On GitHub, the landing page was called “ONgDB – Neo4j Enterprise Fork: Graphs for Everyone,” contained numerous references to Neo4j throughout, and was very similar to that of Neo4j EE. Summary judgment granted on state and federal falseadvertising claims. False designation of origin: Yep.
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 falseadvertising, trademark, and copyright claims. (It
30, 2024) (R&R) Recommendation: Dastar should block Qingdao’s Lanham Act falseadvertising counterclaims based on Lashify’s claim to be the originator of lash technology, but false patent marking counterclaims should survive. This isn’t a false statement of origin (but what about character or qualities?)
2, 2024) Noriega alleged that Abbott’s PediaSure falselyadvertised that it was “[c]linically proven to help kids grow.” Abbott Laboratories, F.Supp.3d 3d -, 2024 WL 402925, No. 4014 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. The label also includes a cartoon giraffe next to, and exceeding the height of, a cartoon ruler.
Entrepreneur’s desire to bring forth a claim for falseadvertising against a competitor in a similar market is not unusual behavior.” Along with adding a defendant, Entrepreneur might eventually be allowed to add a falseadvertising claim, based on facts that were allegedly discovered only during Roach’s deposition.
4, 2023) McCracken alleged that SlimFast food products were falselyadvertised as “CLINICALLY PROVEN [ – ] LOSE WEIGHT & KEEP IT OFF” on the front of their packaging. McCracken v. KSF Acquisition Corp., 2023 WL 5667869, No. 5:22-cv-01666-SB-SHK (C.D. 50 Clinical studies prove the SlimFast Plan helps you effectively lose weight."
million consent judgment, which defendants touted in a press release and advertised on Zinus’s website even after the court vacated the stipulated judgment. Courts have generally harmonized the Lanham Act with the Patent Act by requiring bad faith before claims about patent infringement can constitute falseadvertising.
AB allegedly began advertising for a similar product, claiming that its load bars have “30% more Holding Power than similar Disposable Load Bars,” allegedly an admitted reference to Logistick. 15, 2021) Logistick sells disposable load bars which are used to secure cargo freight during transport.
17, 2020) A lot of stuff here; I will ignore the non-falseadvertising related aspects of this mostly antitrust case. The court says the usual not-good things about falseadvertising’s relationship to antitrust, unfortunately: Deceptive speech usually doesn’t violate antitrust laws. 17-md-2785-DDC-TJJ (D.
JC Penny, for example, has been hit with a class action lawsuit in the Southern District of California over its alleged advertising practice of using “falsereference pricing.” The products, Carranza claims , were never sold at the listed reference price as advertised. Do the claims have merit?
But the FDA, independent reviews at scientific journals, and even some of Amgen’s own employees criticized the advertising claims as unsupported and misleading. According to Defendant’s internal memoranda, the advertising campaign was designed to “optimally position Onpro in [the] face of biosimilar competition.” Sandoz Inc.
28, 2022) The parties compete to provide online ordinations to individuals who wish to perform marriage ceremonies and accuse each other of misconduct in advertising. Lexmark , the court held, didn’t supersede the presumption of injury for false comparative advertising. C19-0301RAJ (W.D. Could ULC Monastery show cognizable harm?
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.
References in Columbia’s marketing materials to “the on-campus experience” were often mere puffery “too vague to be enforced as a contract,” such as a statement in a University publication that “Columbia is an in-person kind of place.”
Was this commercial advertising or promotion? Elysium argued that Right of Assembly was “a marketing website for Tru Niagen for which ChromaDex pays commissions to Shelly Albaum for Tru Niagen customers referred through the website.” Thus, any falseadvertising claim would lie against Albaum, not [directly] against ChromaDex.
22, 2022) Held: A warranty is not “commercial advertising or promotion” under the Lanham Act. Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract under Tennessee common law and falseadvertising in violation of the Lanham Act. (OK, OK, I’m not a big false endorsement fan, but … isn’t this false endorsement? Securranty, Inc.,
Someone has referred you here because you’ve said something wrong about the laws related to web scraping in the United States. You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About The First Amendment.” The prior part explained the most recent ruling, a devastating but not unexpected loss for hiQ. Don’t worry! You’re not alone.
Shkipin’s amended falseadvertising counterclaim fails again. None of HomeLight’s statements allegedly disparaged or even referred to Shkipin’s business. These causation problems also defeated his state UCL claim.
This case hit my alerts because of its discussion about keyword advertising, but first, I have to digest how the court got there. In 2014, the defendant launched a website called “The Texas Tamales Warehouse” but was driven off of that. ” That prompted this litigation. ” UGH.
5, 2022) The court finds that, contrary to the district court’s holding, at least some of the underlying lawsuit’s allegations claimed that Vitamin Energy made disparaging statements about 5-hour Energy, thus triggering the insurer’s duty to defend under its “advertising injury” policy.
Creager sells Montana post drivers (made in China) that compete with the Texas post drivers sold by IDT (advertised as made in the USA). The parties had other disputes, including accusing each other of posting false reviews of the other. The parties compete in the market for skid steer attachments and other products.
Kissler counterclaimed that these emails were commercial speech that violated the Lanham Act’s prohibition on falseadvertising and caused Kissler to suffer irreparable harm, including loss of business opportunities and harm to its reputation. Sending the complaint to twelve customers wasn’t “commercial advertising or promotion.”
This case involves two rival personal injury law firms in Arizona, one of which engaged in competitive keyword advertising against the other. Each log entry includes the date of the call and the caller’s name, as well as a column labeled “[w]hat they said referred by.” The court dismisses the lawsuit on summary judgment. LoanStreet v.
JC Penny, for example, has been hit with a class action lawsuit in the Southern District of California over its alleged advertising practice of using “falsereference pricing.” The products, Carranza claims , were never sold at the listed reference price as advertised. Do the claims have merit?
Lanham Act falseadvertising: Were the statements “commercial advertising or promotion” even though not in a conventional ad? GDI plausibly pled commercial speech: “The statements in question … reference the Kickstarter products that never were made and seemingly promote LFI’s new line of products with Morphe.
In Sybersound , the Ninth Circuit explained that the “nature, characteristics, and qualities” of the karaoke recording referred to things like the “quality of its audio and visual effects.” Such attributes would affect the consumer’s experience rather than the rights of third parties.”
The lawyer defendants allegedly interfered with the timeshare contracts by (1) participating in the marketing defendants’ false and misleading advertising; (2) encouraging or directing the nonpayment of fees owed to Diamond; and (3) keeping the owners in the dark regarding the adverse financial consequences resulting from the nonpayment of fees.
PTRA argued that, because Pasadena has referred to the Rose Bowl Game as “the game” in the past, the Rose Bowl Game was readily identifiable without using the term. This also got rid of the breach of contract claim, which was based on the alleged trademark infringement and falseadvertising.
I’m only going to discuss the false association/falseadvertising bits; as to the latter, state law provides more protection than federal because of the “commercial advertising or promotion” requirement for Lanham Act falseadvertising. The false association/coordinate state law claims survived.
24, 2023) WS sued Wayfair, alleging patent infringement, Lanham Act falseadvertising, Massachusetts and California statutory unfair competition and Massachusetts falseadvertising based on alleged copying of West Elm products. Wayfair moved to dismiss the falseadvertising and unfair competition claims.
23, 2024) Skillz sued its competitor in mobile gaming, Papaya, for violating federal and NY law against falseadvertising by falselyadvertising that its games pit human players against each other when in fact Papaya uses bots masquerading as human players. Papaya Gaming, Ltd., 2024 WL 3526853, No. 24cvl646(DLC) (S.D.N.Y.
This was allegedly still false and misleading, and First Databank allegedly falselyadvertised that it “compile[s]” the relevant information in its database and for its coding determinations from the FDA and from manufacturers, such as Alfasigma. That was too extensive, so the claims all failed.
For example, it was plausibly false/misleading to advertise that users handling one of the products “need not wear protective equipment.” Likewise, ISK adequately alleged contributory falseadvertising claims against PMG. Moreover, ISK alleged that none of the products are registered as pesticides with the EPA.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content