Remove Advertising Remove False Advertising Remove Reference
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

falsely advertising "proprietary" and "exclusive" material isn't actionable under Dastar

43(B)log

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.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

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

aiding and abetting liability in false advertising cases

43(B)log

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.

article thumbnail

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

43(B)log

It didn’t get a chance to decide the false advertising claims, which I think reflects courts’ relatively lax approach to TM compared to the rigors to which false advertising claims are subjected before reaching a jury; personally, I likely would have gone the other way. It was insufficient to provide: 1.

article thumbnail

Monster wins permanent injunction against VPX in false advertising case

43(B)log

12, 2023) Following a large verdict for Monster on false advertising claims, this opinion discusses extensively the requirements for injunctive relief in false advertising cases. A lost customer may constitute the loss of a relationship with a customer as well as reference to other potential customers.”

article thumbnail

antitrust claim against Suboxone, including false advertising, survives summary judgment

43(B)log

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 false advertising difficult.