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
Dawgs’ (“Dawgs”) counterclaim for falseadvertising under the Lanham Act. In 2016, Dawgs added new asserted counterclaims against Crocs, including a claim for falseadvertising under the Lanham Act. Crocs largely prevailed in those actions. 1125(a)(1)(B) (Section 43 of the Lanham Act).
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.
Price: $9.99. * Print-on-demand hard copy from Amazon. Buyers of the hard copy can also get a free PDF file by emailing me a copy of their receipt showing which edition they bought. If you are a professor, or are hoping to teach the course, and would like a free evaluation copy, please email me (egoldman@gmail.com).
Paperback buyers can get a free PDF file by emailing me a copy of their receipt showing which edition they bought. If you are a professor, or are hoping to teach the course, and would like a free evaluation copy, please email me (egoldman@gmail.com). Preface Chapter 1: Overview Chapter 2: What is an Advertisement?
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.
The artists also mimicked Vogue’s promotional activities by distributing copies of the fake magazine in North America’s largest metropolitan areas, including New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Miami, Houston, and Toronto, and plastering posters of the counterfeit cover along streets and buildings in these cities.
After remand, the case went back to the Ninth Circuit, which held that anti-threat classifications might be Lanham Act falseadvertising. Today I’m blogging the district court decision after that remand. Bleeping Computer , where the court found that self-laudatory blog posts were ads. Blog post on amicus briefs.
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.
18, 2022) Previous discussion (one of four opinions in the case that I blogged). The district court remitted the falseadvertising damage award from over $8,000,000 to under $85,000 to reflect that it wasn’t sure whether Utah residents (the ones surveyed) had the same definition of “local” as others.
A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached. The Court noted that, “[a]s technology evolves, there may come a time when artificial intelligence reaches a level of sophistication such that it might satisfy accepted meanings of inventorship. at *17-18.
Copyright: Overjet’s copyright protected its source code, but there were no allegations of code copying. Instead, it alleged copying of its “coloring scheme, shades, and shape.” In 2024, Videa blogged that “[w]e suggest choosing an AI provider with the most FDA-cleared annotations.” Overjet, Inc. VideaHealth, Inc.,
Troia wasn’t offering any services at all, but also, note the ad copy–the headline says “horror story” and the text says “They abruptly fired me,” which were pretty good tipoffs to consumers of what they should expect at the link. The post Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute FalseAdvertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet
[Note: this blog post covers Rep. The manufacturer can sue the seller for copying its shots; the manufacturer can sue for falseadvertising if non-official shots aren’t “accurate,” and freelancers love to sue over product shots they took and ones they think are too similar to the ones they took.].
To many trademark owners, it’s a simple decision to sue when the advertiser includes the trademark in the ad copy. More Posts About Keyword Advertising. Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute FalseAdvertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet Allied Modular appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.
Among other limits, the court refuses to enjoin the defendants’ keyword ad buys, though the restriction applies to trademark references in the ad copy: District courts in the Fifth Circuit have held that “in and of itself—using a competitor’s trademark as a Google AdWords or keyword does not constitute trademark infringement.”
It would be accurate to classify this ruling as another trademark owner loss in a competitive keyword advertising case, despite the fact that the trademark appears in the ad copy. Bye, Goff * Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. That is the most common outcome. LoanStreet v.
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. This ruling doesn’t address the scenario where the advertiser’s ad copy references the trademark. Google (4th Circuit). Actual Confusion.
1-800 Contacts first appeared on this blog on February 9, 2005, my second day of blogging. 17 years later, I’m still blogging their ignoble trademark lawsuits. However, I highly doubt this will be my last blog post about 1-800 Contacts. Warby Parker appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.
The court already sent that trademark claim to the jury ( my blog post on that ruling ). the rival included ad copy telling consumers they were buying the trademark owner’s items when they weren’t. Bye, Goff * Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. LoanStreet 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. I had last time out expressed an interest in following developments in Jack Daniels v. VIP Products, the so-called “Bad Spaniels” case. ” Id. In VIP Products v.
The rival bought competitive keyword ads (the court uses the term “conquesting,” which I objected to here ) but didn’t include the third-party trademark in the ad copy. Here’s an example: Competitive keyword advertising by law firms has been a source of trouble for years. Mark Similarity. ” PREACH.
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 ).
There’s also a copyright claim for Luxy copying the plaintiff’s TOS/privacy policy. 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. Reyes & Adler v.
GWA alleged that Grace copied GWAs patented combustion promoter technology and mounted a marketing campaign denigrating GWAs products to customers. The challenged claims were made in a trade magazine for the petroleum industry; on a blog post on Graces website; and, sometimes with greater elaboration, in direct outreach to certain customers.
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