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
The court simply responds: “the Ninth Circuit has held that Section 230 immunity applies to falseadvertising claims and other claims that are based on purportedly false representations.” As my blog coverage makes clear, I am not a fan of those opinions). Last week I blogged M.S. Google opinion.
8, 2023) When does TM logic creep into falseadvertising cases? Tundra solicits sellers on Faire’s platform to provide their Faire Direct links to retailers registered with Tundra by “promising to promote their brands to new retailers and give them greater exposure” to Tundra retailers. Faire Wholesale, Inc. Tundra, Inc.,
The growing reliance on NFTs necessitates careful evaluation of their implications, not just for creators and brands, but also for consumers and regulators navigating this uncharted territory. The Intersection of Fashion and NFTs The fashion industrys adoption of NFTs has transformed how brands and creators interact with consumers.
Chapter 2: What is an Advertisement? Chapter 3: FalseAdvertising Overview. Chapter 9: FalseAdvertising Practice and Remedies. Chapter 12: Brand Protection and Usage. Chapter 17: The Advertising Industry Ecosystem–Intermediaries and Their Regulation. Chapter 4: Deception. Chapter 11: Copyrights.
He alleges that YouTube sold items under the “Confidence Empire” brand and published videos from a dance troupe named Confidence Empire (maybe this one ?). YouTube appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog. Leonel Lops claims a trademark in the term “Confidence Empire” for shoes. eBay and Sellify v.
Lanham Act FalseAdvertising. Enigma claimed it was false for Malwarebytes to call its programs “malicious,” “threats,” and PUPs. Malwarebytes , the court held that such labels were subjective opinions, not verifiably false. Internet Brands. Blog post on amicus briefs. Blog post on Asurvio v.
Preface Chapter 1: Overview Chapter 2: What is an Advertisement? Chapter 3: FalseAdvertising Overview Chapter 4: Deception Chapter 5: Which Facts Matter? You can see my old syllabi and exams on my Advertising Law course page.
FalseAdvertising. In general, courts should not permit a falseadvertising claim based on a “safe” representation where the representation is rendered untrue by third-party content. Apple appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog. eBay case from 2008. ” Limitation of Liability.
13, 2023) I don’t usually blog default cases because there’s usually little legal analysis; this case is an exception around the fraught area of first sale, showing unusual diligence by the court. Quincy sued BRYK “under multiple legal theories for making unauthorized sales of products branded with Quincy’s PREVAGEN trademark.”
26, 2022) [much other stuff skipped] The parties had a falseadvertising dispute that went to a jury, which found that FIGS wasn’t liable for falselyadvertising the antimicrobial properties of its scrubs. Since the court had some interesting evidentiary rulings, I’m blogging that here. Motion in limine granted.
30, 2024) I don’t usually blog default judgments, but this one was interesting. KHN makes blood-alcohol concentration breathalyzers; defendants make competing breathalyzers “popularized by fake reviews and false quality assurances on Amazon.” Plaintiff was required to plead falseadvertising with specificity, then prove it.”
Nike claimed trademark dilution, pointing to StockX’s heavy use of trademarks in attracting consumers familiar with the Nike brand. StockX has sold over 500 Nike-branded NFTs which can be redeemed for the physical shoes “in the near future.” StockX Vault NFTs.
This has led to consumers opting for brands that pledge their duty to contributing towards environmental protection by means of minimalism and sustainability. In today’s era of eco-branding, wherein trademarks are used to distinguish sustainable brands from the mainstream commercial ones, the latter engage in the practise of “greenwashing”.
A couple of specifics: The falseadvertising claims don’t escape 230: “Had those third-party users refrained from posting harmful content, Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendants falselyadvertised and misrepresented their applications’ safety would not be cognizable.” Despite Doe v. The complaint.
1, 2024) NYU Langone sued Northwell for trade dress infringement, unfair competition and false designation of origin, and falseadvertising under the Lanham Act, as well as related claims under the New York GBL and New York common law. The court dismissed the complaint—the falseadvertising claims with prejudice.
Despite the uncertainty around the long-term success of NFTs, we have certainly seen a “land grab” from brands filing trade marks, including ITV (for LOVE ISLAND), Heineken and even The Empire State Building [Katpost with details from Becky Knott here ].
.” The agency stated in a press release that “boosting your products by hijacking another product’s ratings or reviews is a relatively new tactic, but is still plain old falseadvertising.” ” An FTC blog described this case as “ Mutiny on the Bountiful.” Let’s unpack this.
lululemon’s brand also displays prominently in its keyword ads. McNeil. * Three Keyword Advertising Decisions in a Week, and the Trademark Owners Lost Them All. * Competitor Gets Pyrrhic Victory in FalseAdvertising Suit Over Search Ads–Harbor Breeze v. Labeled search results. Reyes & Adler v.
It also allegedly “selected the design and colors to help with brand identification; the purple, for example, complements Overjet’s purple brand color.” The court also noted that, when the blog post was published, it contained an “investigational” disclaimer; that disclaimer was removed when Videa obtained the relevant FDA clearance.)
20, 2022) Plaintiff PCC sued NABP, a nonprofit whose membership consists of state/similar political unit boards of pharmacy (some other pharmacy associations/partnerships are also separate defendants), alleging violations of the Sherman Act and falseadvertising under the Lanham Act. pharmacies.”
Similar guarantees remain on Young Living’s “various blogs and other websites.” Young Living continued to advertise the products as being “therapeutic-grade.” Yet, if the company falselyadvertised that you could ‘blow a bubble bigger than your own head,’ it is plausible that a reasonable buyer could be misled.”
Further: The reasonable consumer does not don Sherlock Holmes garb to scrutinize an entire aisle filled with shelves of a various pancakes by comparing the exact weight of each box’s content with the price across a dozen brands or shaking and manipulating each box to detect the nature of the hidden culinary treasure.
Courts have rejected Section 230 defenses against claims for falseadvertising, deceptive trade practices, and tortious interference. The amended opinion adds a brand new section independently dismissing the claim on its lack of merits. Vimeo appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog. Google, Inc. ,
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. I have a long-standing personal policy not to give my consumer dollars to any entity that I mock on the blog for IP overreaches. Case Citation : Edible IP, LLC v.
Las Vegas Skydiving Adventures offers tandem skydiving under the “Fyrosity” brand. Melwani sells products under the “Royal Silk” brand. Groupon appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog. It has never offered its services through Groupon. BONUS: Melwani v. Amazon.com, Inc., March 7, 2022).
This case involves Jim Adler, a/k/a the “Texas Hammer,” a Texas lawyer who has spent $100M+ on advertising to build his brand. Bye, Goff * Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. Allied Modular * Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute FalseAdvertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet
The court already sent that trademark claim to the jury ( my blog post on that ruling ). I raised this taxonomical issue with the Network Automation case , which involved niche-y job scheduler software where a consumer who is new to the niche might not know the various brands when starting a search. LoanStreet v. Reyes & Adler v.
BONUS : Plaintiffs allege that the marketing rights that Stevens and Hughes purchased from Google and Facebook directed searches for the Blaux brand to [link] where Stevens and Hughes sold products that competed with the Blaux portable air conditioner. McNeil appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog. v. –Adler v.
Bye, Goff * Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. Allied Modular * Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute FalseAdvertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet Google * Competitive Keyword Advertising Still Isn’t Trademark Infringement, Unless…. LoanStreet v. Reyes & Adler v.
The slew of amicus and other briefs had been filed, and it was time to “get crackin’ on” this blog post, as in time to get moving on the drafting. VIP Products, Jack Daniel’s, the maker of the popular whiskey brand, filed a lawsuit against VIP Products, a company that sells a dog toy shaped like a whiskey barrel.
It has spent $100M on advertising. Brown Engstrand is a start-up rival law firm (operating under the brand “Accident Law Group”). The trademark owner sued the advertiser for trademark infringement and lost in the district court. Prior blog post on the district court ruling. Ad Labeling. LoanStreet v.
The difficulty in balancing the delicately poised sides in this issue, together with the history of so few patent cases taking so long to go all the way through trial (thus making the interim injunction a de-facto ‘result’ instead of an interim measure) is an issue that has been discussed several times on the blog earlier (eg here and here ).
Introduction Well, the online space is indeed centuries apart from any business process for creating a brand and speaking with its audience; now everything can even protect its intellectual property. This is where trademarks truly reflect as a brand identity and shape a very rapid recognition. It has also brought a lot of challenges.
We sometimes talk about them as ‘BEG’ diets.” • “DCM is caused by boutique brands, exotic proteins, or grain-free or a combination thereof.” The big problem was commercial advertising or promotion. It applies to any foods that are generally un(der)tested or un(der)studied as long-term dog diets.
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