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
Vampire Family Brands, LLC v. MPL Brands, Inc., Unsurprisingly, the trademark claims survive a motion to dismiss, but associated falseadvertising claims don’t. Falseadvertising: Article III standing existed, but not Lanham Act standing. CV 20-9482-DMG (ASx), 2021 WL 4134841 (C.D.
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.
Nike claimed trademark dilution, pointing to StockX’s heavy use of trademarks in attracting consumers familiar with the Nike brand. With consumers attributing scams to Nike, the use of Nike’s marks on these NFTs have generated negative associations with Nike in a way that harms Nike’s reputation and immense goodwill.
Its TOS provide that users will not use Roblox content outside of the Roblox Platform, monetize Roblox content, or imply an association with Roblox for their businesses outside of the Roblox Platform. Defendants allegedly marketed the My Avastars dolls with a “code” that could be used in the Roblox platform.
which will determine the scope of the Lanham Act as applied to trademark infringement that occurs outside the US. The Court has also agreed to hear a patent case this term, and it will rule on a copyright fair-use case brought by the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts that was heard this fall. Queen of Christmas.
28, 2022) Chanel sued What Goes Around Comes Around (WGACA), alleging trademark infringement, falseadvertising, false association/endorsement, and related NY GBL claims for deceptive/unfair trade practices and falseadvertising. Nominative fairuse factors: Also for a factfinder. second-hand.
Hearty thanks to Colette Durst , Stephen Lee , and Susan Perera , for generously sharing their insights and perspectives about trademark nominative fairuse. In case you missed it, here is my Trademark Nominative FairUse of Another’s Logo post from March, leading up to the 2020 AIPLA Annual Spring Meeting.
Mary Katherine Amerine, Reasonably Careless Consumers in TM & FalseAdvertising How do courts treat consumers in TM and falseadvertising cases? Falseadvertisinguses v different framework: consider the challenged ad as a whole, including disclaimers and qualifying language. Dougies for diapers.
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.”
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. Ives introduced the idea of functional color but didn’t give us a full definition. Struggling w/where this stops.
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 control group was shown a “workup” of what a “Plaid branding only” user interface would look like. But that would run up against a strong preference for truthful speech, especially if the alternative seems to be that PNC can control what apps its customers can use. It was also ok for him to use qualitative analysis.
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.
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. Shell Brands International Ag , Blackberry Limited ,, and Dolby International AB orders.
but also narrows the issues somewhat; the larger infringement, cybersquatting, and falseadvertising claims can’t be resolved on summary judgment. Even if they were generic uses, two articles and one opinion weren’t sufficient to overcome the “strong presumption” of validity of a registered mark. But is it a nominative fairuse?
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?
These patterns can intersect with the trademark and other intellectual property (IP) in various ways, although it’s important to note that the use of dark patterns is unethical and often violates principles of fairuse and consumer protection.
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.
1A and Article III standing are there, but worrisome; casualness over stare decisis does suggest courts are willing to look at things from scratch—Vintage Brands; Netchoice—everything might be up for grabs. Does “brand personality” online change what TMs are about? Does “brand personality” online change what TMs are about?
Introduction Well, the online space is indeed centuries apart from any business process for creating a brand and speaking with its audience; now everything can even protect its intellectual property. This is where trademarks truly reflect as a brand identity and shape a very rapid recognition. It has also brought a lot of challenges.
For about a decade, courts had realized that IIC had gone way too far, and had expanded liability in ways that didn’t protect consumers and facilitated anticompetitive claims about falseadvertising. This a Tom Sachs painting from his recent series of brand paintings. Is this explicitly misleading?
Discussant: Mark Lemley Maybe corpus linguistics can help w/things like descriptiveness and nominative fairuse, though skeptical about confusion or fame (b/c you need a standard). There’s a strain of marketing literature that uses scanner data: tries to measure effect of brand extension on parent brand.
Malwarebytes, which allowed a falseadvertising claim to proceed based on one software provider’s use of the terms “malicious” and “threat” to describe its alleged competitor’s software, despite a dissent raising free speech arguments. Then I’ll talk about the 9 th Circuit case Enigma Software v.
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