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
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.”
This case highlights the complexities of trademarklaw in the NFT ecosystem, where artistic freedom often clashes with brand protection. The outcome underscores the importance of trademark enforcement in safeguarding brand reputation, particularly in an era where digital assets are increasingly intertwined with physical products.
22, 2022) This is a super messy case with a lot going on; I’m going to blog about it mainly to highlight a new thing you can apparently do with a trademark application , which is use it on non-Amazon platforms to gain advantages. Even without standing, Jones failed to state a claim for false association or falseadvertising.
Facebook appeared first on Technology & Marketing LawBlog. Thus, Hepp’s statutory claim against Facebook is about the commercial effect on her intellectual property, not about protected speech. The majority ends with a not-credible declaration that its ruling doesn’t threaten free speech.
One of Elysium’s counterclaims was based on statements that appeared on a blog, Right of Assembly, upwards of 20 times: ChromaDex isn’t allowed to say that NR treats any disease, because the FDA has not approved that. However, Elysium didn’t show that all the pages of the blog had a Tru Niagen banner, only the homepage. [I
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. lululemon appeared first on Technology & Marketing LawBlog. Reyes & Adler v.
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. The post Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute FalseAdvertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet Reyes & Adler v.
.” In other words, they sought to establish (using centuries-old chattel-based theft doctrines rather than trademarklaw) that a trademark owner has the unrestricted right to shut down anyone using their trademarks, even if no consumers are harmed. to see if it could find some soft spot in Georgia state law.
[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.].
More Posts About Keyword Advertising. Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute FalseAdvertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet Troia. * Trademark Owner F s Around With Keyword Ad Case & Finds Out–Las Vegas Skydiving v. The post Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. July 24, 2022).
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. The post Competitive Keyword Advertising Claim Fails–Reflex Media v.
Brown Engstrand * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law 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 LoanStreet v. Reyes & Adler v.
May 10, 2023) More Posts About Keyword Advertising * Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. Allied Modular * Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute FalseAdvertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet Troia * Trademark Owner F s Around With Keyword Ad Case & Finds Out–Las Vegas Skydiving v.
While this is a startling good defense ruling from a trademarklaw standpoint, I could see a state bar arguing that ads violate ethics rules if they produce hundreds of potentially misdirected prospective clients. May 18, 2023) More Posts About Keyword Advertising * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law v.
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. Some “highlights” of 1-800 Contacts’ trademark jurisprudence over the years: 1-800 Contacts v. WhenU (2d Cir. Jand, Inc. ,
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. The post Trademark Owner F s Around With Keyword Ad Case & Finds Out–Las Vegas Skydiving v. Reyes & Adler v.
Brown Engstrand * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law 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 LoanStreet v. Reyes & Adler v.
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 ). Brown Engstrand * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law v.
Brown Engstrand * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law 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 LoanStreet v. Reyes & Adler v.
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. The post Court Dismisses Trademark Claims Over Internal Search Results–Las Vegas Skydiving v. Reyes & Adler v.
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. McNeil appeared first on Technology & Marketing LawBlog. Reyes & Adler v.
Brown Engstrand * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law 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 LoanStreet v. Reyes & Adler v.
Brown Engstrand * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law 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 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 LLC is important because it has the potential to set a precedent for how trademarklaw is applied to the use of famous trademarks on non-competing goods.
The trademark owner sued the advertiser for trademark infringement and lost in the district court. Prior blog post on the district court ruling. So much time and money was wasted on the trademark battles over keyword ad sales back in the old days, and it would break my heart if we do all of that over again.
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 ).
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. Luxy appeared first on Technology & Marketing LawBlog. Reyes & Adler v.
However, it provides both good challenges and opportunities under trademarklaw. The blog covers how trademarks evolve in the era of social media and influencer marketing, analyzing legal uncertainties, protection mechanisms, and best practices for commercial usage. Therefore, a brand can be registered in the U.S.
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