Advertising Marketing Television 
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. ” Dawgs brief.
IP and Legal Filings
MAY 17, 2023
Introduction The promotion of products through defamatory or misleading remarks about the competitor’s product, known as “product disparagement,” can lead to legal disputes, blurring the line between this and comparative advertising. To prevent legal disputes, caution must be exercised to differentiate between the two.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
JD Supra Law
SEPTEMBER 12, 2024
Image-generating technology is accelerating quickly, making it much more likely that you will be seeing "digital replicas" (sometimes referred to as "deepfakes") of celebrities and non-celebrities alike across film, television, documentaries, marketing, advertising, and election materials.
SpicyIP
AUGUST 25, 2021
Domex Advertisement: Product Disparagement or Nominative Fair Use? An image of the comparative advertisement launched by Domex, wherein Domex explicitly asks which toilet cleaner fights bad smell for longer and makes a tick mark against Domex, with Harpic as another option next to it. Legal Position on Comparative Advertisement.
43(B)log
AUGUST 22, 2022
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.’” Not all marketing of artistic works is noncommercial speech. The California Supreme Court reversed.
SpicyIP
JANUARY 11, 2023
In an extremely detailed order ( pdf ) concerning the issue of comparative advertising and disparagement, the Delhi High Court held that “ an advertiser ought to have the freedom to make advertisements with generic comparison highlighting the features of its own product.” Ananya is a 4th year student pursuing B.A
43(B)log
SEPTEMBER 21, 2021
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. to assert that they would not have bought the televisions or would have paid less for the televisions had there been no false advertising).”
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
115 
Let's personalize your content