Remove Advertising Remove False Advertising Remove Television
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.

article thumbnail

court remands NYC's false advertising case against oil companies to state court

43(B)log

Here, the city successfully wins remand (and a fee award) in this opinion rejecting removal of its false advertising suit against Exxon, other fossil fuel companies, and their top trade association for violations of New York City’s Consumer Protection Law. Following a similar case, Connecticut v.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

California Supreme Court reaffirms strict liability for false advertising in Serova

43(B)log

The statements were “commercial advertising meant to sell a product, and generally there ‘can be no constitutional objection to the suppression of commercial messages that do not accurately inform the public.’” The First Amendment has long coexisted with no-fault false advertising laws. The California Supreme Court reversed.

article thumbnail

continued desire to purchase TVs suffices for California standing

43(B)log

3, 2021) Plaintiffs alleged false advertising of TTE’s TVs in violation of California and New Jersey law; the court granted the motion to dismiss but allowed leave to amend as to injunctive relief claims. The TVs weren’t allegedly worthless if truthfully advertised. Was this plausible?

article thumbnail

Atari’s Copyright Claim Against State Farm Survives Challenge

Copyright Lately

Atari’s copyright infringement lawsuit against State Farm advances, underscoring the importance of careful clearance in advertising. In addition to copyright infringement, Atari brought claims for business disparagement, false information and advertising, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. Conversely, in Ringgold v.

article thumbnail

Rogers v Grimaldi doesn't apply to alcohol, but Peaky Blinders still can't get injunction

43(B)log

It submitted 14 social media posts “which it contends shows consumers and retailers attributed a particular source to Defendants’ liquor and Plaintiff’s television show.” The managing director declared “[a]t the time that I chose the name Peaky Blinder, I had never heard of [Plaintiff’s] Peaky Blinders television program.

article thumbnail

gold buyer's "up to 90%" payment claims were plausibly misleading

43(B)log

In 2010, the Today Show—a morning television show aired on the NBC network—aired a segment in which it mailed a single item of gold to ten different mail-in precious metals dealers and compared the prices offered. Beyond 79, LLC, 2020 WL 9848431, No. 18-CV-00837 EAW (W.D.N.Y. 15, 2020) Previous opinion. That’s a question of fact.