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
Daeho allegedly misappropriated Sun Nong Dans confidential galbi preparation method, which has the benefit of the meat easily falling off the bone. The court granted defendants motion to dismiss the state and federal falseadvertising claims, though other claims remain.
6, 2022) The district court reverses the bankruptcy court ruling ( discussed here ) that held that falseadvertising had interfered with the debtor’s estate in violation of the automatic stay. But why would some advertising constitute exercising control while other advertising didn’t? In re Windstream Holdings, Inc.,
or the exclusive rights over a recipe – breach of confidentiality?; or falseadvertising – the defendant claims to be the ‘inventor of Butter Chicken and Dal Makhani’; or is there an actual ‘invention’ in question – owners of both restaurants call themselves ‘inventors’ of the dish?
“But how can the Court permanently enjoin the sales of three specific products, when there is only an allegation or evidence supporting at most one product being falselyadvertised? Plaintiff was required to plead falseadvertising with specificity, then prove it.” It only did so with evidence as to B07ZH6PVD4.
Timeshare company Bluegreen Vacation said Tuesday that it inked a confidential settlement with certain timeshare exit companies that resolves claims that the companies are falselyadvertising their services to help release consumers from their binding timeshare contracts in a "timeshare exit scheme."
In its Second Amended Complaint, Columbia made claims for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, interference with contractual relationships, false endorsement, falseadvertising, and unfair competition.On March 2, 2022, EIF filed an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint.
As employees of MaddenCo, both Reed and Darby executed a Confidentiality Agreement wherein they agreed to not disclose any confidential information or material of MaddenCo or its subsidiaries. Per Plaintiff’s website, MaddenCo is a privately held family business and has been for over 40 years.
Bombay High Court clarifies that plaintiff must disclose confidential information to the court in cases where a breach of confidentiality is asserted. The Bombay High Court vacated the ex-parte interim injunction order that was previously granted over a general allegation of breach of confidentiality by the plaintiff’s ex-employees.
Route sued for breach of contract, commercial disparagement and defamation per se, intentional tortious interference with contractual relations, falseadvertising, and contributory trademark infringement. Falseadvertising: The comments about Route were opinion and not actionable under the Lanham Act.
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. LBF (& Vice-Versa). * Trademark Owners Just Can’t Win Keyword Advertising Cases–EarthCam v. Reyes & Adler v.
The allegedly fraudulent reviews qualified as deceptive acts under the relevant UDAP laws, as did falselyadvertising rental listings as “verified,” “authentic,” and “available.” Alleged large-scale manipulation of reviews that created a false and misleading impression of the number of positive reviews could be falseadvertising.
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. Chunma USA, Inc., 2021 WL 1534988, No. 20-CV-0271 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.
21, 2023) In two opinions on the same day, the court dealt with various IP/falseadvertising claims brought by one litter box seller against another. Smarty Pear allegedly used confidential information to inject the market with a new—and virtually identical—automated litter box: the Leo’s Loo. Automated Pet Care Prods.,
DealMaker alleged that defendants stole its trade secrets and also alleged violation of state and federal falseadvertising law. Defendant Marble is Issuance’s co-founder and chief executive officer. challenged representations in slide form For purposes of a preliminary injunction motion, the court first considered literal falsity.
Monster alleged that VPX falselyadvertised Super Creatine as a source of creatine providing numerous physical and mental benefits, advertising that BANG can improve brain function, has anti-depressive effects, and helps build muscle. means, because none of the allegedly false statements actually said “source of creatine.”
The information contained in this document is confidential to the person to whom it is addressed. Diamond argued that it was harmed by falseadvertising that (1) caused timeshare owners to stop making contractually-required payments, (2) discouraged future timeshare and points purchases, and (3) harmed its reputation.
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.
De Cortes alleged that the restrictive covenants were unenforceable because they didn’t protect any confidential information, long-term relationships, specialized training, or other legitimate interests. claims, the Lanham Act claim did.
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. LBF (& Vice-Versa). * Trademark Owners Just Can’t Win Keyword Advertising Cases–EarthCam v. Reyes & Adler v.
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.
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.
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….
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. LBF (& Vice-Versa). * Trademark Owners Just Can’t Win Keyword Advertising Cases–EarthCam v. Reyes & Adler 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.
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. LBF (& Vice-Versa). * Trademark Owners Just Can’t Win Keyword Advertising Cases–EarthCam 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. LBF (& Vice-Versa). * Trademark Owners Just Can’t Win Keyword Advertising Cases–EarthCam 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. LBF (& Vice-Versa). * Trademark Owners Just Can’t Win Keyword Advertising Cases–EarthCam 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.
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. LBF (& Vice-Versa). * Trademark Owners Just Can’t Win Keyword Advertising Cases–EarthCam 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. LBF (& Vice-Versa). * Trademark Owners Just Can’t Win Keyword Advertising Cases–EarthCam v. Reyes & Adler v.
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.
These guidelines target practices such as false urgency, basket sneaking, subscription traps, confirm shaming, forced actions, nagging, interface interference, bait and switch, hidden costs, and disguised ads. on March 30, the Court underscored the importance of specific details in examining confidentiality claims.
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. LBF (& Vice-Versa). * Trademark Owners Just Can’t Win Keyword Advertising Cases–EarthCam v. Reyes & Adler v.
28, 2024) A rare timeshare exit company lawsuit against a timeshare developer, alleging falseadvertising and related claims. At one point, plaintiff WFG obtained accreditation and an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau, which it advertised with the AARP, allegedly bringing in more than $10 million in revenue.
It also sued Papaya for falseadvertising about lack of bots. The existing surviving counterclaims relate to Papayas challenges to Skillz advertising that its own platform did not use bots, matched players evenly, and allowed customers to withdraw cash at any time.
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