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 LoanStreet court didn’t even go that far with the “educational leaflet service” trick; it simply said that gripers ads that could damage a business’ reputation constitute a use in commerce, even when there’s zero commercial activity. The post Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute FalseAdvertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet
20, 2023) The court denies settlement approval in this case alleging that Macy’s misrepresented the thread count in some of the sheets it sold, because it doesn’t like the cy pres part of the remedy. The global class action settlement created a $10.5 million common fund, and the parties jointly moved the court to approve.
After a settlement with one defendant, the two remaining defendants “are the sole licensors of the PS 1-09 stamp to 36 Brazilian plywood mills that export structural plywood to the United States.” Google didn’t attest to anything about the locksmiths; it was like a building that rents space to business owners.
18, 2022) Not bound by Article III, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling despite the parties’ settlement. The First Amendment has long coexisted with no-fault falseadvertising laws. citing both UCL and Lanham Act claims, including falseadvertising claims.] “The Sony Music Entertainment, P.3d
14, 2022) Once in a blue moon, a falseadvertising-based antitrust claim survives a motion to dismiss in a circuit that imposes a list of excessive requirements on such claims. Consumers and advertisers adequately alleged that Facebook has monopoly power in social network/social media (consumers) and social advertising markets.
12, 2022) An insurance coverage case about a falseadvertising claim that doesn’t turn on “advertising injury”! Did the undefined term “unfair trade practices” include consumer protection and falseadvertising? N21C-10-100 MMJ CCLD, 2022 WL 4128608 (Del. The insurers refused Godiva’s demand to cover the claim.
May 10, 2023) More Posts About Keyword Advertising * Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. Allied Modular * Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute FalseAdvertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet Google * Competitive Keyword Advertising Still Isn’t Trademark Infringement, Unless….
More Posts About Keyword Advertising. Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute FalseAdvertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet 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.
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. 1-800 Contacts. * FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-Competitive–FTC 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 Google * Competitive Keyword Advertising Still Isn’t Trademark Infringement, Unless…. LoanStreet v. Reyes & Adler v.
.” “LVSA litigated this case so aggressively because of its animus towards Groupon… It is improper to use litigation to seek retribution for another’s legal business activities.” 1-800 Contacts. * FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-Competitive–FTC v.
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. 1-800 Contacts. * FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-Competitive–FTC v.
May 18, 2023) More Posts About Keyword Advertising * 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.
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 Google * Competitive Keyword Advertising Still Isn’t Trademark Infringement, Unless…. LoanStreet v. Reyes & Adler 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 Google * Competitive Keyword Advertising Still Isn’t Trademark Infringement, Unless…. LoanStreet v. Reyes & Adler v.
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. 1-800 Contacts. * FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-Competitive–FTC 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 Google * Competitive Keyword Advertising Still Isn’t Trademark Infringement, Unless…. LoanStreet v. Reyes & Adler v.
In addition to copyright infringement, Atari brought claims for business disparagement, false information and advertising, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. Effect on the market : Atari alleged that it has an active licensing business extending its brand into advertising, merchandising, and other areas.
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. 1-800 Contacts. * FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-Competitive–FTC 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 Google * Competitive Keyword Advertising Still Isn’t Trademark Infringement, Unless…. LoanStreet v. Reyes & Adler v.
Princeton insured Wonderland from 2016-2018 (with a broad exclusion for defamation, invasion of privacy, and various forms of advertising injury in the second year called the Exhibitions and Related Marketing Exclusion), and agreed to defend the club but reserved the right to deny insurance coverage.
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 Google * Competitive Keyword Advertising Still Isn’t Trademark Infringement, Unless…. LoanStreet v. Reyes & Adler v.
accused product another another The subsequent stipulation to a permanent injunction did not cover the registrations, but there is apparently a confidential settlement agreement that may have covered them.
.” The agency stated in a press release that “boosting your products by hijacking another product’s ratings or reviews is a relatively new tactic, but is still plain old falseadvertising.” If the FTC felt this practice was deceptive or misleading, how about articulating this as new business guidance?
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. 1-800 Contacts. * FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-Competitive–FTC v.
MillerKing, a small Chicago law firm that claims to be a direct competitor of DNP, sued DNP for false association and falseadvertising under the Lanham Act and Illinois state law. DNP advertises that it uses artificial intelligence” rather than “human knowledge.” But DNP isn’t actually licensed to practice law.
Interestingly, after the sj motions were briefed, defendants made a settlement offer that would have waived all claims to attorneys’ fees, which expressed confidence that they would prevail and be entitled to such fees, which the court labeled “prescient.”
He claims that Glock entered into settlements with confidentiality provisions with those who sued over the defect, to prevent the public from learning about it. The defect allegedly could damage brass casings, rendering them useless when they are usually reusable. And he alleges that the defect is latent, making it easier to avoid discovery.
Readers who are wondering about the legality of buying reviews may recall that earlier this year the FTC published related business guidance , and buying fake reviews was highlighted as a big “no.” The proposed order makes it clear that the money will go to the states and not the FTC. But we leave with two closing thoughts.
Shifting to this business model “dramatically increased its profits while reducing the share of the money raised that is passed on to charities.” Plaintiffs argued that, given Omaze’s business model, if Omaze does not initially receive enough paid entries, it postpones the drawing to avoid losing money.
Unfortunately, some regressive state bars have taken the position that the ethics rules categorically ban lawyers’ competitive keyword advertising, even if there’s no evidence of any IP violation or any consumer deception or harm. Bye, Goff * Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v.
If they really wanted to build their business, they could have invested that money into marketing instead of legal fees. 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.
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. 1-800 Contacts. * FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-Competitive–FTC v.
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. Nor did he allege any lost business opportunities as the result of their presence on the market.
Ultimately, the California enforcers reached a financial settlement with the clothing brand that includes injunctive terms governing future conduct. 4: Early Opioid Medication Litigation Rulings Favor Advertisers. We expect state AGs to continue to scrutinize the effects of advertising and media, including social media, on minors.
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