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
7, 2022) Melwani owns the Royal Silk trademark for “a wide variety of products.” His marks are enrolled in Amazon Brand Registry, and Royal Silk Direct maintains an authorized Royal Silk “storefront” on Amazon.com. False designation of origin/falseadvertising: Lasoff v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2022 WL 670919, NO.
.” 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.
Quincy sued BRYK “under multiple legal theories for making unauthorized sales of products branded with Quincy’s PREVAGEN trademark.” But the unauthorized sale of a genuine product does not violate trademarklaw. Even after default.
Using the name or image of a celebrity for brandadvertisement or promotion in the US does not always attract liability, provided the brand is not falsely misleading the public that the celebrity endorses the product. Spelling-Goldberg Prods., In Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P & Co. &
Besides Mariah, there were many other celebrity trademark stories this year, as more an more celebrities launch more and more brands. On November 7 th , Conde Nast sued Drake and 21 Savage for $4 million for falseadvertising and infringing Vogue’s trademarks. Past issues of Top Trademark Trends: 2021: [link].
Falseadvertising: Spiralverse allegedly falselyadvertised its version of the Piano Book on Amazon as “new,” despite the rebinding, residue, and front labels. Was this literally false?
Las Vegas Skydiving Adventures offers tandem skydiving under the “Fyrosity” brand. Melwani sells products under the “Royal Silk” brand. It has never offered its services through Groupon. A search for “skydive Fyrosity” at Groupon says “No matching deals. BONUS: Melwani v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
This case involves Jim Adler, a/k/a the “Texas Hammer,” a Texas lawyer who has spent $100M+ on advertising to build his brand. The defendants bought competitive keyword ads on Adler’s trademarks, which Adler objected to. Brown Engstrand * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law v.
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.
lululemon’s brand also displays prominently in its keyword ads. 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. Labeled search results. Reyes & Adler v.
BONUS : Plaintiffs allege that the marketing rights that Stevens and Hughes purchased from Google and Facebook directed searches for the Blaux brand to [link] where Stevens and Hughes sold products that competed with the Blaux portable air conditioner. McNeil Consultants, LLC , 2021 WL 3508713 (5th Cir. DFO Global Performance Commerce Ltd.
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. Brown Engstrand * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law v. 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.
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.
The Plaintiff presented evidence of its long-standing use and registration of the ‘NOVA’ trademark, along with the distinct packaging featuring a blue background, a grazing cow, and the brand name. During the proceedings, the Court observed and penalised the Defendants for falseadvertising and contemptuous conduct.
Although “third parties have used Flora-Bama in the titles of third parties’ artistic works with Plaintiffs’ oral or written permission,” that doesn’t make this a title-v-title case: Basic trademarklaw demonstrates why. This justification is at least consistent with the core idea of trademarklaw.
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.
Will they get the message? * * * Background Lerner and Rowe is an Arizona law firm. It has spent $100M on advertising. Brown Engstrand is a start-up rival law firm (operating under the brand “Accident Law Group”). Brown Engstrand * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law v.
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.
Panel #2, TM, moderated by Vice Dean Felix Wu Jack Daniels says that use as a trademark is special: like copyright’s bête noire, confusion caused by trademark use is the central concern of trademarklaw. Punchbowl News/Hog Farm cases seem like branding uses—establishing independent identity under the mark.
Rierson, TrademarkLaw and the Creep of Legal Formalism Various rules w/in TM law have been codified that we seem to be treating more as formalistic labels or bright line rules when a more practical approach is preferable in TM context instead of leaning on labels. How do they make that happen? Gender and class?
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. However, it provides both good challenges and opportunities under trademarklaw. 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. American Girl Brands, LLC, 2021 WL 510729, No.
Changes in TrademarkLaw and Evidentiary Rules Introduction: Jake Linford Before courts admitted surveys routinely, they were concerned about hearsay. 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.”
I’m going to talk briefly about last term’s Jack Daniels case—a trademark infringement and dilution case—as well as Elster, argued last week, in which the Justices appeared inclined to reject a First Amendment challenge to the refusal to register the claimed mark “TRUMP TOO SMALL” for t-shirts.
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