Confidentiality False Advertising Marketing 
43(B)log
OCTOBER 16, 2024
“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 falsely advertised? Plaintiff was required to plead false advertising with specificity, then prove it.” It only did so with evidence as to B07ZH6PVD4.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
JULY 25, 2021
If they really wanted to build their business, they could have invested that money into marketing instead of legal fees. Consistent with that, Aliign is spending more marketing dollars to appeal this lawsuit to the Ninth Circuit. LBF (& Vice-Versa). * Trademark Owners Just Can’t Win Keyword Advertising Cases–EarthCam v.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Indiana Intellectual Property Law
FEBRUARY 23, 2023
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.
SpicyIP
APRIL 17, 2023
The court held that since it does not have the statistical data regarding market presence of other pharmaceutical compounds, the brand names that ends with “Dex” and when one removes from the cited examples the products containing dexamethasone and dextromethorphan, the remaining examples cannot make out a case u/s 17(2).
43(B)log
OCTOBER 10, 2023
DealMaker alleged that defendants stole its trade secrets and also alleged violation of state and federal false advertising 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.
43(B)log
SEPTEMBER 6, 2023
Route sued for breach of contract, commercial disparagement and defamation per se, intentional tortious interference with contractual relations, false advertising, and contributory trademark infringement. False advertising: The comments about Route were opinion and not actionable under the Lanham Act.
43(B)log
APRIL 25, 2023
21, 2023) In two opinions on the same day, the court dealt with various IP/false advertising claims brought by one litter box seller against another. Plaintiff (dba Whisker) sued defendant (dba Smarty Pear), its competitor in the market for automated, self-cleaning litter boxes. Automated Pet Care Prods., Purlife Brands, Inc.,
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
59 
Let's personalize your content