Confidentiality False Advertising Trademark 
43(B)log
DECEMBER 12, 2022
6, 2022) The district court reverses the bankruptcy court ruling ( discussed here ) that held that false advertising 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.,
SpicyIP
JANUARY 30, 2024
Is it about the exclusive right to use a trademark – “butter chicken” or the “look and feel” of a restaurant?; or the exclusive rights over a recipe – breach of confidentiality?; According to Indian Express , the dispute concerns trademark rights over the dish. Do restaurant layouts function as ‘trademarks’?
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
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
Aliign “is an event, lifestyle, and apparel company” allegedly with a first trademark use in 2011. Aliign sued lululemon for trademark infringement. Want to Engage in Anti-Competitive Trademark Bullying? Google. * Competitive Keyword Advertising Still Isn’t Trademark Infringement, Unless….
BYU Copyright Blog
APRIL 25, 2022
As detailed in our previous posts, Columbia's allegations in this litigation have centered on EIF's alleged attempts to usurp control of the prestigious Encyclopaedia Iranica project (the "Encyclopaedia") and the legacy, publication rights, trademarks, and numerous copyrights associated with it.
SpicyIP
APRIL 17, 2023
On 24 th February, Justice Navin Chawla of the Delhi High Court passed an interesting judgment that discusses the parameters for a trademark to be considered descriptive/laudatory and the evidence needed to establish the same. At issue in Lt Overseas North America Inc & Anr. 2 (Lulu Mall). Rochem Separation Systems (India) Pvt.
43(B)log
SEPTEMBER 7, 2021
The claim for cancellation of the ‘675 Mark was based on fraud in obtaining the trademark registration and misrepresentation of source, whereas their claim for cancellation of the ’549 and ’077 Marks was based on misrepresentation of source alone. Chunma USA, Inc., 2021 WL 1534988, No. 20-CV-0271 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. and [the] Coach” brand.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
59 
Let's personalize your content