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
Roblox sued for copyright infringement, falseadvertising, trademark infringement, false association and false designation of origin, trade dress infringement, intentional interference with contractual relations, breach of contract, and falseadvertising and unfair competition under California law.
On 24 June 2022, BAYC sued Ryder Ripps, a conceptual artist and NFT creator for trade mark infringement, unfair competition, falseadvertising, cybersquatting and other cause of actions before the Central District of California. This is a U.S NFTs – still subject to “old” IP law An NFT is a non-fungible (i.e. Ether (USD 1+ million).
Safelite allegedly falselyadvertised that (1) “if damage spreads beyond the size of a dollar bill, a replacement will be necessary”; (2) “when a chip is smaller than a dollar bill, it can usually be repaired without replacing the windshield.” can be safe and is viable.” Were plaintiffs’ injuries proximately caused by Safelite?
25, 2021) Unlike the education cases so far, this pandemic case sustains both consumer protection and contract claims. The court found that plaintiffs plausibly showed that ski passes were encompassed within the definition of “services.” Alterra Mountain Co., 2021 WL 2633326, No. 20-cv-01057-RM-SKC (D.
20, 2021) In this timeshare exit falseadvertising litigation, the court excludes Wyndham’s expert. Timeshare exit entities like defendant TET used “online advertising and oral sales pitches to timeshare owners to convince them to sign up for TET’s service.” Sussman, 2021 WL 4948099, No. 6:18-cv-2171-GAP-DCI (M.D.
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 falseadvertising parts: Jeong alleged that Nexo advertised to consumers that it does not own users’ collateral (e.g., The court now found the breach of contract claim sufficiently pled. This allegedly breached Nexo’s duty of good faith and fair dealing and constituted a violation of California’s UCL.
He paid money to get extra visibility for his dating profile and claims he got poor results, so he sued Bumble for falseadvertising. Bumble made a series of miscues, including several problems with the email notice and the lack of a definitive screenshot of its blocker card. Alkutkar used the dating app Bumble. What went right?
.” Clearly, the second part of that definition targets Amazon and other major marketplaces, such as eBay, Walmart Marketplace, and Etsy. The first part of the definition includes services with “publicly interactive features that allow for arranging the sale or purchase of goods.”
The underlying lawsuit asserted misappropriation of images and likenesses for advertising purposes under state law; violation of the Virginia business conspiracy statute; and violations of the Lanham Act for falseadvertising and false association.
Thus, most of the claims survived Target’s motion to dismiss (though unjust enrichment/quasi-contract was duplicative). Even if dictionary definitions of “fish oil” could be read to encompass the product, that wasn’t relevant at the motion to dismiss stage.
Defendants counterclaimed for payment and damages for breach of contract and bad faith. Under Rhode Island law, policy exclusions must be unambiguous, and ‘contract provisions subject to more than one interpretation are construed strictly against the insurer.’” And a party’s failure to read a contract does not render it unenforceable.
Enigma sued its competitor Malwarebytes for Lanham Act falseadvertising and NY business torts for designating its products as “malicious,” “threats,” and “potentially unwanted programs” (PUPs). Enigma’s allegations, including definitions of “threat” from statutes and other authorities, still had a subjective component.
Chiusa’s claims: willful copyright infringement; breach of the oral distribution agreement; trademark infringement, falseadvertising, trade dress/trade name infringement, and false designation of origin undre the Lanham Act; a Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claim; and conversion.
They are: the Unfair Competition Law (UCL); the FalseAdvertising Law (FAL); and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). While they often cover the same conduct in falseadvertising cases and are cumulative of each other, they have differences. UCL: The UCL, California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.,
Other developments “sharply contracted” the scope of the claims to the “All Natural” claim on three product lines. The earlier definition used in the case was heavily dependent on now-abandoned “Non GMO” claims. Without the GMO context, the court found that there was no objective definition of “all natural.”
Life insurance contracts are not “tangible chattels.” The California Supreme Court previously held that the CLRA’s protections do not extend to the sale of life insurance.
The court thought that this wasn’t material, but conflated falseadvertising and false association (which was plausibly alleged). Zillow arguably presents itself as a resource to consumers when in fact, it is an advertising platform for agents, but that’s true of almost all websites.
It contracts with Charities Aid Foundation of America, which in turn delivers donated funds to designated charities. RINGO ringers were always a possibility, but the allegations here suggest that Omaze deliberately controls—and in the process falselyadvertises—the ending dates in order to make sure it covers its costs.
29, 2024) Previously, after a bench trial, the court found Albion liable for falselyadvertising its caulk dispensing guns as “Made in the USA.” After more evidence, the court found that Albion adequately supported its unclean-hands defense—that Newborn had also made false USA origin claims—until early 2007. Newborn Bros.
Breach of contract: Burger King argued that its ads weren’t binding offers. Although it’s not reasonable to believe that an ad promised that inventory would always be available, the menu boards, “by definition, are only subject to acceptance by the handful (or so) of customers who are actually in the store looking to purchase a sandwich.”
21, 2023) ExeGi sued Brookfield for state and federal falseadvertising/tortious interference. These communications were more than “purely negotiation of individual contracts, but rather encompass a variety of media through which Brookfield represented information about HPP.” ExeGi Pharma, LLC v. 3d -, 2023 WL 3142311, No.
cannister contains only 865 grams of ground coffee, meaning that if a consumer followed the instructions on the back of the cannister, she could make only 70% of the number of cups advertised on the Label. Plaintiffs sued for falseadvertising; the cases have been consolidated here. But the 30.5 So those claims were dismissed.
The Court interpreted the clause on ownership of work made during a contract of service (Section 17(c)) to not apply in situations where there is a contract between equals. The Court limited the scope of Section 17(c) to apply to contracts where the relationship between the parties is akin to that of an apprenticeship.
GCU isn’t permitted to contract with any third party for these services. Whatever the legal niceties, whether “nonprofit” advertising meant something other than the legal definition to students and was deceptive needed factual development. Additionally, FTCA liability turns on misleadingness to a reasonable consumer.
They don’t use it often but they definitely have it, and more courts are following the Belmora approach of saying 43(a) gives them that authority.] (3) Interested in sellers’ understanding of the contracts. Lemley: is/should there be contributory falseadvertising liability? I don’t think that’s true either.
The Trademark’s Function Under Branding The most basic of all definitions of a trademark may be termed as a sign of identification and is generally by a word, spelling, logo, slogan, or design, which can use an identifying and differentiating goods or services from one person or entity as opposed to another.
Another way to put it is that aesthetic functionality requires you to have an understanding of the definition of the market in which other clothing makers should be free to compete. 30, 2021) Plaintiff Daniel Abrahams formerly contracted with a publisher to author a series related to the Fair Labor Standards Act. 19-3009 (RDM) (D.D.C.
Businesses harm consumers only in a few ways—falseadvertising, monopoly prices, defective products. Role definitions can render certain interpretations “irrational.” A: yes, you could definitely find problems there—restrictive terms, deplatforming, refusal to deal on nondiscriminatory basis.
.” The appeals court disagrees: “the plain and ordinary definition of the word ‘sale,’ which is not otherwise defined in the DCSA, includes any consideration to effectuate the transfer of property, not only an exchange for money. TikTok appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.
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