Remove Brands Remove Definition Remove False Advertising
article thumbnail

antitrust claim against Suboxone, including false advertising, survives summary judgment

43(B)log

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 false advertising difficult.

article thumbnail

IIC decision also says some things about false advertising: materiality may not be presumed from literal falsity

43(B)log

I won’t say much about that, though I do have a big question, but there are also false advertising aspects of the case. False advertising: the jury found for Select Comfort on seven false advertising claims and for defendants on the remaining eight, awarding about $160,000 in disgorgement and nothing on lost profits.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Even in default, it's not TM infringement to resell legitimate goods (but maybe false advertising to call them new)

43(B)log

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.

article thumbnail

Copyright preemption in trade dress claims?

43(B)log

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 false advertising?

article thumbnail

"#1 Brand" claim was literally false because of apples-to-oranges comparison

43(B)log

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.,

article thumbnail

Two hospitals can both be best, and use purple ads (for now at least)

43(B)log

1, 2024) NYU Langone sued Northwell for trade dress infringement, unfair competition and false designation of origin, and false advertising 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 false advertising claims with prejudice.

article thumbnail

"Made in the USA" materiality showing requires evidence, not just interested witness testimony

43(B)log

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.