Advertising Intellectual Property Marketing Patent Infringement 
IIPRD
MARCH 4, 2024
Introduction Intellectual Property Rights is a right which is connected with the person or the company’s intangible property. So, this is an infringement of trademark and Nike can sue Person A for using its trademark without consent and causing loss to its goodwill. What are the rights in Intellectual Property?
Patently-O
APRIL 17, 2024
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.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Indiana Intellectual Property Law
MARCH 14, 2023
Batesville”), for patent infringement. Starmark Cremation Products began in 2004 designing and marketing a small line of engineered cremation solutions. Starmark Cremation Products began in 2004 designing and marketing a small line of engineered cremation solutions. Hillenbrand.
Indiana Intellectual Property Law
OCTOBER 20, 2023
for alleged patent infringement of its fitness products in Bell’s sporting goods stores, including their Indianapolis, Indiana, Bells of Steel USA Showroom. According to the complaint, Rogue Fitness owns several design and utility patents for fitness equipment, including Patent No. Continue reading
Delaware Intellectual Property Litigation Blog
JANUARY 8, 2022
January 5, 2022), the Court granted Defendant Next Caller’s post-trial renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law of no false advertising under the Lanham Act and to take away the jury’s award of punitive damages. At the conclusion of the jury trial, the jury found Defendant liable for false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
Indiana Intellectual Property Law
MARCH 7, 2023
for trademark infringement, false advertising and patent infringement. The company holds several patents and trademarks related to its products, including its flagship product, the EMSCULPT device. Indianapolis, Indiana –The Plaintiff, BTL Industries, Inc. 5,572,801 and 6,069,279.
LexBlog IP
JANUARY 10, 2022
Most Section 337 investigations address issues of patent infringement, but Section 337 investigations can also address infringement of other statutory intellectual property (trademarks, copyrights, etc.) In comparison to litigating in U.S. In comparison to litigating in U.S.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
98 
Let's personalize your content