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
22, 2022) The court here allows an antitrust claim to proceed based in part on allegedly false/misleading statements because they form part of the alleged anticompetitive product-hopping scheme and because the unique characteristics of the drug market make market-based responses to falseadvertising difficult.
I won’t say much about that, though I do have a big question, but there are also falseadvertising aspects of the case. Falseadvertising: the jury found for Select Comfort on seven falseadvertising claims and for defendants on the remaining eight, awarding about $160,000 in disgorgement and nothing on lost profits.
4, 2024) Finding Zesty Paws’ “#1 Brand” claim literally false, the court grants a preliminary injunction despite Zesty Paws’ attempt to create a factual dispute about what a “brand” is. The dispute turned on what a “brand” is; Zesty Paws argued that Nutramax was not a brand, but Cosequin etc. Nutramax Labs.,
Quincy sued BRYK “under multiple legal theories for making unauthorized sales of products branded with Quincy’s PREVAGEN trademark.” 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.
WowWee’s Vice President of Brand Development & Creative Strategy, Sydney Wiseman, used her WowWee email address to create a Roblox user account and used her Roblox account to promote My Avastars dolls on social media, including videos on her TikTok account.
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”.
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.
2024) The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of KIND on Bustamante’s falseadvertising consumer protection class action claims based on KIND’s “All Natural” labeling. Bustamante v. KIND, LLC, 100 F.4th 4th 419 (2d Cir. Nor did he specifically analyze KIND ingredients, only how they were “typically” sourced.
Nike claims that, despite those efforts, StockX sold a number of Nike-branded shoes that were counterfeits. As for the positivity of the ads, “consumer surveys in falseadvertising cases commonly display the challenged advertisement.” Surely a highly negative control is not a very plausible ad.)
Both sides now claim the other is liable for falseadvertising, among other claims.” Defendants also allegedly infringed RCI’s trademarks by using photographs of Roberto Coin jewelry and RCI’s logo in Kings Stone’s advertising after RCI terminated the relationship. And yes even borsheims has to be held accountable.”
Mary Catherine Amerine, Reasonably Careless Consumers in FalseAdvertising and Trademark Consumers can devote much more (or less) time to a decision than seems rational for the amount of risk/benefit in their lives. Court expects consumers to be reasonably prudent in both TM and falseadvertising. But, surprise!
Atari’s copyright infringement lawsuit against State Farm advances, underscoring the importance of careful clearance in advertising. It looks like Jake from State Farm is definitely going to blow through his deductible, as the insurance giant lost its bid to declare game over on a lawsuit brought by video game publisher Atari Interactive.
24, 2021) Plaintiffs sought class certification of their falseadvertising claims based on the claims that KIND falselyadvertised “All Natural / Non-GMO,” “Non-GMO,” and “No Genetically Engineered Ingredients”; KIND sought to exclude expert reports. In re KIND LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litig., 2021 WL 1132147, Nos.
ITW advertises “the interchange between its products and the matching OEM manufacturer products” in its materials, sometimes including OEM interchanges for specific automotive brands in its package advertising. It also marketed certain products as epoxies despite their not fitting the chemical definition of an epoxy.
Wakefern operates approximately 353 supermarkets under various brands such as ShopRite and Fairway Market across several states, and has a registration for ShopRite. Falseadvertising: Not commercial advertising or promotion. Trademark infringement: This just wasn’t use in commerce.
The court says there can’t be MULTIPLE instances of INITIAL interest confusion: By definition, initial interest confusion is “confusion that creates initial customer interest.” Bye, Goff * Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. However, that issue has already been sent to the jury.
” This definition is typically terrible. ” This definition is typically terrible. 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 This is a very unfortunate development IMO.
The control group was shown a “workup” of what a “Plaid branding only” user interface would look like. PNC’s marketing expert opined that Plaid benefited from the usage of PNC’s marks and that Plaid’s usage of PNC’s marks harmed PNC’s brand. There were limited interactive elements on the screens.
9, 2023) Simpson sued MiTek for Lanham Act and state law falseadvertising/passing off, and for copyright infringement. For falseadvertising, the control group respondents were exposed to the same four MiTek stimuli but with the reference numbers removed. Simpson Strong-Tie Co. 2023 WL 137478, No. 20-cv-06957-VKD (N.D.
Enigma sued its competitor Malwarebytes for Lanham Act falseadvertising and NY business torts for designating its products as “malicious,” “threats,” and “potentially unwanted programs” (PUPs). Enigma’s allegations, including definitions of “threat” from statutes and other authorities, still had a subjective component.
Definition should be broader than sale/transportation of goods in commerce. A: Falseadvertising context: FTC/state AGs. But using yellow for a saccharin packet might be falseadvertising, b/c it would communicate the presence of sucralose rather than saccharin. Genre—modern typeface might send a different message.
The challenged language includes “to help manage blood sugar,” “#1 doctor recommended brand,” and “scientifically designed for people with diabetes.” This is not the sort of ambiguity that can be definitively resolved by reference to a back label.”
ICC develops model building codes and standards; it sued a competitor, UpCodes, for falseadvertising (Lanham Act, NY GBL, and common law unfair competition). A plaintiff cannot state a falseadvertising claim based on such a statement because, by definition, it cannot be proven false. UpCodes Inc.,
The products at issue are uniformly branded with the phrase “C + Collagen.” Gross Skincare allegedly knows that consumers will pay more for skincare products that contain collagen and intends for consumers to infer from the “Collagen” branding that the products do so.
The front label contains the brand name “Topo Chico,” the word “Margarita,” and the phrase “Hard Seltzer.” Likewise, Warren’s claim that the use of the Topo Chico brand name would lead reasonable consumers to believe that it contains sparkling mineral water sourced from Monterrey, Mexico was not plausible. Coca-Cola Co.,
The sculptures included a logo registered as (1) the cattle brand for the ranch and (2) the trademark of the College.” They also allegedly solicited monetary donations purporting to preserve Spence’s “dream” and made false statements about his wishes, e.g., “Would Gerry Spence have let this happen?” [I
2019), held — based on dictionary definitions — that the word “diet” when used “in a soft drink’s brand name is understood as a relative claim about the calorie content of that soft drink compared to the same brand’s ‘regular’ (full-caloric) option” and not a promise of weight management. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc.,
Schotte alleged a “substantial price premium” of at least 25% more for the Wipes as compared to non-flushable wipes from the same brands. I think that’s definitely wrong, but it’s consistent with a pattern where courts allow themselves—or juries they supervise—to find facts but don’t like legislatures doing so.
Falseadvertising: potential laches problems, though defendants didnt show prejudice (shouldnt the burden be on LLT to plead around it where laches is pled on the face of the complaint?). Thats one reason why we should police the definition of commercial advertising or promotion and not treat scientific articles as such in most cases.]
So too w/falseadvertising. Assumptions skipped over in TM/falseadvertising analysis.] Protecting brand investment and consumers? That’s where disclosure rules need the most attention: definition and relation to what courts are going to do with the registration. Death closes things off. TESS is a mess.
I teach that falseadvertising is probabilistic: if a representation is likely to deceive a substantial number of reasonable consumers, it is deceptive, even if not everyone is misled—but that conclusion is most reliable for competitor-plaintiffs, as this case shows. Anyway, the front label here was ambiguous, not misleading.
Premier sold Joint Juice for treating/preventing joint pain; a jury found it liable to a consumer class for falseadvertising under NY law; and the district court awarded statutory damages to the class, but cut them by over 90%. New York uses “an objective definition of deceptive acts and practices.”
or “A Taste of Mexico!”; (b) a Mexican flag on the front and center of the packaging; and (c) the brand name “La Banderita” (or “the flag”), a reference to the Mexican flag displayed prominently on the Products. All the accused products allegedly use: (a) the phrase “El Sabor de Mexico!” La Banderita Whole Wheat Fajita Similar.
.” That same environmental information—encompassing the “E” in trending ESG—is of value to consumers who seek out and, at times, pay a premium for “green” branded products. “little FTC Act” for being modeled after the FTC Act), as well as a count for unjust enrichment.
Also, whether “handcrafted” may be deceptive in a particular case depends, at least in part, on the size of the brand holding its products out as “handcrafted,” and plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that Blue Ice was not a mass seller, so reasonable consumers could believe it “handcrafted” its vodka. Have a bottle delivered to your door.
A variant of separating the mark from the brand; not seeing it in all categories, and we may have a world in which some marks—maybe the 1%--are not divided from brands but the others are. Brands can choose to “gate” on Amazon with authorization letters, but how does the consumer know the seller will stick to selling genuine goods?
As plaintiffs pointed out, the relevant context includes the Nestlé brand name and the placement of the product next to chocolate chips in grocery store baking aisles. Similarly, images of a cookie and white morsels do not provide any information as to the substance of the morsels.”
However, fake negative reviews of RingCentral were definitely “of and concerning” RingCentral, so the defamation and trade libel claims based on them could continue. Trade libel: Trade libel is the intentional disparagement of another’s property that results in pecuniary damage.
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. d) Other IP Developments 1.
It has spent $100M on advertising. Brown Engstrand is a start-up rival law firm (operating under the brand “Accident Law Group”). These states have created a mutant species of IP law disconnected from both trademark law or falseadvertising law; and this mutant IP comes from an unelected group, not a legislature.
Static Controls in 2012, a Lanham Act falseadvertising case, the Court gave us two more principles for interpreting section 43: a statutory cause of action extends only to plaintiffs whose interests “fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.” If you just saw it, would you think that’s their brand?
18, 2024) Scotts makes consumer lawn, garden, pesticide, and insecticide products, including under the “ORTHO” brand. Ortho black trade dress This was sufficiently definite; it didn’t include terms like “such as” or “for example,” which can be problematic. At least the court is equally lenient with TM and falseadvertising?
They don’t use it often but they definitely have it, and more courts are following the Belmora approach of saying 43(a) gives them that authority.] (3) Lemley: is/should there be contributory falseadvertising liability? We don’t need to reform advertising law; we need to reform agency law. 3) Functionality.
“While one who provides services in exchange for a payment relies only on the payment guarantee, a purchaser of a car may choose to rely on any of a number of marketing and branding representations.” (I Or we can provide notice by using the common law definition of fraudulent misrepresentation, where the common law provides the notice.
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