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.” Section 230 more clearly applies to third-party ad copy than to the resulting sales. See, e.g., the cited Ynfante v.
Wowwee sells a line of dolls called “My Avastars,” which plaintiffs allege were “copied directly from Roblox’s Classic Avatars.” Looking at the side by side pictures in the complaint, this is a bit hard to swallow, but the evidence of copying/references to Roblox clearly bleed over from the TM side.
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).
A jury found that defendant HBI engaged in unfair competition and violated the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (IUDTPA” in its packaging and promotional activities for its RAW Organic Hemp branded tobacco rolling paper products. The court granted an injunction focusing on the Alcoy claims, which were false.
Thingiverse cube Kitchen Cube made and sold copies of the Cube. It advertised “This device was one of the most popular items on a popular 3D printing website with over 20,000 unique downloads” on its website, at a time when Leszczynski’s Thingiverse page displayed that his Cube had been downloaded 20,000 times.
Defendants allegedly copied key components of Trackman’s copyrighted software and falsely suggested, in promotions and advertisements, that defendants were authorized to use the well-known courses in their game. Although the court dismissed a contract claim, copyright and falseadvertising claims survived.
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?
The First Amendment has long coexisted with no-fault falseadvertising laws. So, were Sony’s statements, “a brand new album from the greatest artist of all time” with “9 previously unreleased vocal tracks performed by Michael Jackson,” commercial speech? There was also no copyright preemption.
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. FIGS’ alleged copying of SPI’s products was not relevant to falseadvertising.
In addition to copyright infringement, Atari brought claims for business disparagement, false information and advertising, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. As a result, the court found that Atari had plausibly alleged that the copying exceeded the threshold of de minimis use and allowed the copyright claim to move forward.
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 Eric (egoldman@gmail.com). Preface Chapter 1: Overview Chapter 2: What is an Advertisement?
Spiralverse removed the original paperback glue bindings from the copies it purchased, punched holes in the pages, and installed spiral bindings. Spiralverse listed its modified copies for sale on Amazon at prices of $29.99 Was this literally false? It’s desirable for making it easier to turn pages for performance etc.
18, 2024) Scotts makes consumer lawn, garden, pesticide, and insecticide products, including under the “ORTHO” brand. Scotts alleged that the products do not provide the advertised protection for up to 12 months or 365 days; that was sufficient to allege falsity. At least the court is equally lenient with TM and falseadvertising?
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.
26, 2021) The parties compete to sell novelty consumer goods; defendant allegedly copied plaintiff’s business model including its product launches, providing its affiliates with Strong Current’s “marketing methods and materials, which include, among other things, product depictions and graphics.” Strong Current Enters. Affiliati Network, Inc.
Businesses harm consumers only in a few ways—falseadvertising, monopoly prices, defective products. If something isn’t protected by IP, it’s free for copying. We like copying! Confusion is what we try to avoid, not copying. The roles of business and consumer have been applied flatly and wrongly.
17, 2022) Along with the headline-worthy nature of the claim (“ITALY’S #1 BRAND OF PASTA” plausibly falsely communicates Italian origin), the decision contains an extended discussion of judicial notice on a motion to dismiss v. Could “ITALY’S #1 BRAND OF PASTA” mislead reasonable consumers?
2, 2022) Before the jury verdict in favor of Monster’s falseadvertising claim was this opinion resolving evidentiary issues. However, they fail to show that Monster dirtied its hands to make the falseadvertising claims now alleged against Defendants.” Monster Energy Co. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2022 WL 17218077, No.
Industria, based on Colombia, produces and distributes food products under two relevant brand names: Zenú and Ranchera. They’re successful brands: approximately $300,000,000 annually in sales of Zenú products and $100,000,000 in sales of Ranchera products. This makes Colombians abroad get tricked.”
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 ].
Significantly, even intentional copying of a plaintiff’s trademark does not, standing alone, state a misrepresentation claim.” and [the] Coach” brand. Chunma USA, Inc., 2021 WL 1534988, No. 20-CV-0271 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. The complaint also showed images showing close similarities between Coach’s trademarks and some of Chunma’s products.
It also allegedly “selected the design and colors to help with brand identification; the purple, for example, complements Overjet’s purple brand color.” 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.”
For one, when a trade dress is exclusive to a particular brand, consumers may interlink its external appearance to the company and the quality of its products. Thus, the trade dress here acts as a metonym for the brand. Additionally, a brand can also license a trade dress in order to obtain monetary advantages.
ICC develops model building codes and standards; it sued a competitor, UpCodes, for falseadvertising (Lanham Act, NY GBL, and common law unfair competition). ICC also publishes “Custom Codes” that integrate these amendments into its codes; it sells physical and electronic copies of both kinds of codes. UpCodes Inc.,
Plaintiffs sued for falseadvertising and false endorsement under the Lanham Act, violation of their right to publicity, deceptive trade practices under New York GBL Section 349, and defamation. 2021), which considered all these claims except for falseadvertising. The court was guided by Electra v. 3d 233 (2d Cir.
Only a few days ago, news was shared online that energy drink brand Alani Nutrition sued Rise UP and an influencer for copyright infringement and falseadvertising due to the allegedly unauthorised reproduction of one of its advertising campaigns. Its right pocket has a small star-shaped embroidery with the brand's logo.
In today’s market, a distinct brand identity is critical in all company sectors. Influencers that make a lot of money from internet marketing must also defend their own brand identification. Maintain your distinct brand identity. . Falseadvertising should be avoided when defaming a product. Trademarks.
Tiffany is world renowned jewellery brand famous for selling diamond engagement rings since 19 th century. Costco contended that “Tiffany” is not just a brand name but also a recognised term for ring setting which is not infringement as they have been using it in good faith. ” The Sports Auth.,
May 19, 2023) Whereas the timeshare falseadvertising cases might be making law largely applicable to other timeshare cases, what’s going on in the strip club advertising cases might have somewhat broader implications. The district court concluded that plaintiffs’ false endorsement claims were foreclosed by Electra v.
Kaira’s brand AMUL is internationally renowned and India’s largest food brand. First, Kaira provided evidence of the goodwill that the AMUL brand and designs have acquired globally and in Canada. Kaira produces milk products. Kaira is based in India, has been in operation since 1946 and has over 3.2
24, 2023) WS sued Wayfair, alleging patent infringement, Lanham Act falseadvertising, Massachusetts and California statutory unfair competition and Massachusetts falseadvertising based on alleged copying of West Elm products. Wayfair moved to dismiss the falseadvertising and unfair competition claims.
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.
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. the rival included ad copy telling consumers they were buying the trademark owner’s items when they weren’t.
Trademark infringement through misleading use of logos or branding: Dark patterns might involve the deceptive use of logos, brand names, or trademarks to mislead users into making purchases or signing up for services they didn’t intend to. This violates copyright laws and may lead to legal actions for copyright infringement.
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. Jack Daniel’s argued that the toy infringed on their trademark, as the shape of the whiskey [bottle] is closely associated with their brand. ” Id.
Deliberate copying was irrelevant. In a Rogers case, intentional copying alone cannot justify an inference of copying with intent to confuse, even if that can occur in cases that don’t “implicate” the First Amendment. “[I]n Yet both artists won.” The concurrence agreed that here, there wasn’t evidence of trademark function.
So too w/falseadvertising. Assumptions skipped over in TM/falseadvertising analysis.] Protecting brand investment and consumers? Evolving norms of communication and branding both have no punctuation/capitalization: lululemon. Death closes things off. Property law: somewhere between all and nothing.
Brown Engstrand is a start-up rival law firm (operating under the brand “Accident Law Group”). 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. Ad Labeling. Mark Similarity.
Eventually, Johnson and Johnson announced that it would no longer enforce their patents for Bedaquiline (brand name: Sirturo) which is used in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) in 134 low- and middle-income countries. The rejection order is authored by Dr. Latika Dawara, Asst. HULM Entertainment v.
Copying may be directly costless to the knowledge creator, but knowledge transfer is not, and who is initiating may affect what’s going on here: knowledge transfer encodes voluntariness which fits with Cicero but not with a lot of the copying to which people object today. How do they make that happen? Gender and class?
It didn’t get a chance to decide the falseadvertising claims, which I think reflects courts’ relatively lax approach to TM compared to the rigors to which falseadvertising claims are subjected before reaching a jury; personally, I likely would have gone the other way. They were directly competing.
How to survey arbitrariness/TM function: Washingmachine.com in booking.com—maybe along with not sure we also need the option “neither a common name nor a brand name.” There’s a strain of marketing literature that uses scanner data: tries to measure effect of brand extension on parent brand. This isn’t wholly empirical.
You can copy a Rembrandt and do a beautiful job but it’s not a Rembrandt.” They’ve changed the design, but still claim authenticity: the authenticity is the brand. Design w/in Reach was selling its copies as “museum quality reproductions.” Original reproductions” is the concept. Should separate the law from the marketing.
Healthvana sued in May 2020 for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and falseadvertising in violation of both federal and state law, as well for cybersquatting under ACPA. Telebrands’ TV ad didn’t use the word “Covid” [I bet litigation counsel is grateful for FDA compliance efforts carried out in writing the copy!].
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