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
This one-hour CLE session focuses on defending against false advertising and trademark claims, providing practical strategies for brand owners facing allegations of misleading advertising or trademark infringement. By: Greenberg Glusker LLP
To answer that and other questions about Halloween costumes, we have to step back and look at how copyright and trademark law apply to costumes. Trademark and Halloween Costumes. The other major part of the question is trademark. Trademark infringement, however, isn’t like copyright. Copyright and Halloween Costumes.
Skillz sued its competitor Papaya, alleging false advertising under federal and state law. Papaya counterclaimed for the same causes of action and added trademark and copyright infringement as well as defamation and civil conspiracy claims. The complaint indicated that the article was about this litigation: a judicial proceeding.
Troia claimed that he did not use the LoanStreet trademark in commerce. However, the court points out that he referenced the trademark in keyword ads (the court cites Google’s upper-left labeling to reinforce the point), which normally would be a use in commerce. The court displays some of the ads: Use in Commerce.
Fifteen years ago, courts generally avoided categorical pronouncements about the legitimacy of competitive keyword advertising. Whatever legal ambiguity might have existed then has been decisively resolved, at least with respect to competitive keyword ads that don’t use the trademark in the ad copy. Google (4th Circuit).
DRS , explaining the Court’s approach towards determining whether the use of a mark as a keyword will amount to trademark infringement or not. Last month we had a detailed post by Aditya Gupta on the DHC Division Bench order in Google v. Views expressed here are those of the author’s alone. Findings of the Court in Google LLC v.
Earlier this year, I blogged a ruling holding that Seeking Arrangements’ trademark infringement claim against Luxy could proceed because Luxy included Seeking Arrangements’ purported trademarks in its keyword metatags. More Posts About Keyword Advertising. The defense runs Luxy, a competitor. 1-800 Contacts v.
This case hit my alerts because of its discussion about keyword advertising, but first, I have to digest how the court got there. In an April 2023 summary judgment ruling , the plaintiff established that it “possesses the legally protectable, incontestable trademarks TEXAS TAMALE and TEXAS TAMALE COMPANY.” ” Say what?
I’ve often wondered about the conversations that take place between trademark owner and counsel before filing a keyword advertising lawsuit. You can have a court declare your trademarks weak or invalid so they are less valuable than when you started. ” The additional cost of LVSA’s litigation choices?
To many trademark owners, it’s a simple decision to sue when the advertiser includes the trademark in the ad copy. So, what exactly is the trademark owner fighting for here? This is a bad ad buy by Allied, AND it’s a bad trademark enforcement decision by Porta-Fab. More Posts About Keyword Advertising.
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.
In addition to the copyright issues, which includes verbatim dialog included in the songs, Netflix alleges that the duo used Bridgerton trademarks improperly in advertising the show. 3: VeePN Puts in Place Some Anti-Piracy Blocks to Settle Copyright Litigation. 2: Peloton Sued for ‘Outrageous’ Use Of Cypress Hill Songs.
Edible Arrangements objected to Google selling its trademark to trigger keyword ads. They filed a trademark lawsuit in 2018 but abandoned the suit when it got sent to arbitration. The court says that trademark law: permits the use of trade names as long as referencing other brand names does not confuse consumers and is not deceptive.
LVSA sued Groupon for trademark infringement. Melwani sued Amazon for trademark infringement, dilution, and more. With respect to the trademark claim, the court says the Ninth Circuit’s Multi-Time Machine v. More Posts About Keyword Advertising. Google. * Competitive Keyword Advertising Claim Fails–Reflex Media v.
17 years later, I’m still blogging their ignoble trademark lawsuits. Some “highlights” of 1-800 Contacts’ trademark jurisprudence over the years: 1-800 Contacts v. Unfortunately, that’s standard operating procedure in trademark cases. WhenU (2d Cir. Keyword Ads. Proximity of goods.
This is a case involving a trademark owner and a competitive keyword advertiser. The trademark owner memorably (and ridiculously) characterized the rival as engaging in “keyword conquesting,” a term I encourage you never to use. The court already sent that trademark claim to the jury ( my blog post on that ruling ).
On October 27, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB) cancellation of Brooklyn Brew Shop, LLC’s (BBS) standard character mark and dismissed in part, affirmed in part and remanded the TTAB’s decision regarding the opposition of BBS’s mark.
We are pleased to bring you a guest post from Payal Saraogi, on a recent decision of the Delhi High Court on Google’s use of trademarks as advertisement keywords. Revival of the Third-party Trademark as a Keyword Dispute. Google India Private Limited and others. The parties and their positions.
PepsiCo had registered the tagline “For the Bold” as a trademark in 2013 for its Doritos tortilla chips and used it extensively for promotions when it was launched in India in 2015. it filed for a trademark infringement and unfair advantage suit in the court against Parle Agro. For the Bold!”, For the Bold!”
Introduction Trademarks are an important division of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) as it considerably contributes in identification and promotion of a product. A well- known trademark helps the consumers in spotting the difference between similar products by educating them about the product which results in informed choices.
Intellectual property owners who can't justify the cost of trademark, copyright or advertisinglitigation in the current uncertain economic climate should consider less expensive brand-protection options, such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's uniform takedown procedure for online copyright infringement, says Michael Justus at Katten.
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.
10, 2023) Zest sued defendants for trademark/trade dress infringement, alleging that defendants’ DESSLoc suite of denture attachment products infringed the trademarks and trade dress of their Locator product suite. Geryon Ventures, LLC, 2023 WL 2903668, No. 22-CV-230 TWR (NLS) (S.D.
July 31, 2024) The trademark owner Alsa sells chrome paint. Walmart doesn’t carry the trademark owners’ items. In searches for the trademarks in Walmart’s internal search engine, Walmart only shows unrelated items–not items from the trademark owner or any competitors. Walmart Inc. Seriously, dude?
Kudos to Nicolet Law for surviving the motion to dismiss, but I’m wondering if it will ultimately regret filing this lawsuit–either because its trademark gets busted or because it made a federal case out of nothing. For more background on competitive keyword advertising by lawyers, see this article. 2023 WL 3340214 (W.D.
Swiftly thereafter, Nike sued StockX in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), alleging that StockX’s use of Nike’s famous marks in connection with its NFTs constitutes trademark infringement. Nike, Inc. StockX LLC, 1:22-cv-00983-VEC.
INTRODUCTION Section 29 [1] of the Trademark Act, 1999 , defines infringement as: “Trademarks infringement occurs if an unauthorized party makes use of a registered trademark in a way that is likely to lead to confusion about the origin of the product.” FAMOUS CASES OF TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT 1.Foreign
She writes and teaches in the trademark law area, and was one of the signatories of the First Amendment Professors amicus brief filed in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. Jack Daniel’s contends this design infringes its trademarks and tarnishes its brand. VIP Products says its dog toy parody is expression protected by the First Amendment.
Introduction To make it easier for consumers to identify the source of a specific commodity or service, trademarks serve this goal. This is why having a trademark is so crucial to the economy. A trademark communicates to the consumer the origin and calibre of the products or services. Defendant No.
The Trade Marks Act, 1999 governs the use of trademarks in India. It concerns with the registration and protection of trademarks for products and services alike from being used deceptively, false marks. That, whether the respondent exploit the unfair advantage of the petitioner brands goodwill in the trademark application?
Jim Adler runs a personal injury law firm that claims trademarks in JIM ADLER, THE HAMMER, TEXAS HAMMER, and EL MARTILLO TEJANO. It bids on the Adler trademarks for “click-to-call” keyword ads. ” Adler sued for trademark and related claims. ” Adler sued for trademark and related claims.
In an effort to connect with a younger, tech-savvy consumer base, more and more firms are deciding to debut their products and advertise them electronically through the Metaverse. This demonstrates the succinctness and simplicity of the Metaverse’s trademarking mechanism. What is the Metaverse?
This is a competitive keyword advertising lawsuit. The plaintiff has a trademark registration for the “Nursing CE Central” mark for providing continuing education for nurses. A rival, Colibri, displayed in the trademark in its Google keyword ads, but it claims it has stopped doing so after the lawsuit was filed. Mark similarity.
This case involves two rival personal injury law firms in Arizona, one of which engaged in competitive keyword advertising against the other. May 18, 2023) More Posts About Keyword Advertising * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law v. Allied Modular * Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute False Advertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet
The year 2022 has been an extremely important year for the development of trademark jurisprudence in India. There have been various landmark judgements which have not only highlighted cardinal principles of trademark law but have also given a nuanced understanding of how Courts interpret statutory trademark provisions.
This case highlights the intersection of trademark law and e-commerce regulation, raising questions about the accountability of online marketplaces in protecting brand integrity. crore (USD 5 million) for the extra marketing and advertising costs that Plaintiffs incurred to repair its damaged reputation. crore (USD 33.78
Trade Mark Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) defines the term Trademark as “a mark which is capable of distinguishing a product or service of one person from those of others”. [1] The ‘Cycle’ trademark has been domestically and internationally used by the plaintiff since 1954 without anyone’s interruption.
Image from here On April 28, 2023, Justice Amit Bansal of the Delhi High Court passed three separate orders, all dealing with a similar issue- unclear, unreasoned orders from the Patent Office and the Trademark Registry (IP Offices) that rejected the patent/ trademark applications. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs , N.V.
This case involves Jim Adler, a/k/a the “Texas Hammer,” a Texas lawyer who has spent $100M+ on advertising to build his brand. The defendants bought competitive keyword ads on Adler’s trademarks, which Adler objected to. ” It sounds like this narrowed the case solely to the trademark infringement claim.]
Despite Romag , the court declines to award disgorgement or fees in this false advertising case. A jury found that Harbor Breeze proved all elements of liability for false advertising but awarded $0 in damages and profits. And they used the phrase “Feel the Harbor Breezes” in a pay-per-click advertisement on Google.
6, 2022) The district court reverses the bankruptcy court ruling ( discussed here ) that held that false advertising had interfered with the debtor’s estate in violation of the automatic stay. The back of the advertisement said, among other things, “Windstream’s future is unknown, but Spectrum is here to stay.”
Instead of protecting consumers, this bill gives trademark owners absolute control over online marketplaces by overturning Tiffany v. Because the bill makes it impossible for online marketplaces to avoid contributory trademark liability, this bill will drive most or all online marketplaces out of the industry.
In re: Elysium Health-ChromaDex Litigation, No. Was this commercial advertising or promotion? Elysium argued that the website as a whole was a referral website for Tru Niagen, which advertised Tru Niagen at the top of every page. Thus, any false advertising claim would lie against Albaum, not [directly] against ChromaDex.
A recent ruling by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court elevated the brand Haldiram as a well-known trademark. This is a landmark decision in the Indian intellectual property law regime as it sets a precedent for safeguarding established trademarks in India. 2024 for further understanding of the concept of well-known trademarks.
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