Remove Contracts Remove False Advertising Remove Information Remove Marketing
article thumbnail

Retailer has standing to assert Lanham Act false advertising claims against its own supplier

43(B)log

In summer 2020, AHBP began negotiating with the Lynd defendants for the exclusive license to market and sell a surface disinfectant/cleaner known as “Bioprotect 500” in Argentina. Lynd advertised the Product as effective against the coronavirus. the Lanham Act false advertising claim survived.

article thumbnail

TM claimant may add false advertising claims as direct competitor

43(B)log

Roach, meanwhile, makes frequent use of the phrase “The Unstoppable Entrepreneur” and applied to register the phrase for “Business consultancy; Business marketing consulting services.” Entrepreneur’s desire to bring forth a claim for false advertising against a competitor in a similar market is not unusual behavior.”

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

sending emails under former employees' names may be reverse passing off

43(B)log

CCM counterclaimed for abuse of process and for violations of the Lanham Act and related state laws; one ex-employee also brought counterclaims against loanDepot for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The false association/coordinate state law claims survived.

article thumbnail

Claims that timeshare exit services are legal and effective were not puffery

43(B)log

11, 2021) Another timeshare versus timeshare exit false advertising case. Marketing Defendants allegedly falsely advertise timeshare exit services by promoting a legitimate process to exit timeshare contracts. This opinion considered only the marketing defendants. The other claims survived too.

article thumbnail

contributory liability possible for lawyers in timeshare exit cases

43(B)log

Pandora Marketing, LLC, 2021 WL 1573073, CV 20-5486 DSF (ADSx) (C.D. Here, Diamond sued both the marketers who seek exit clients and also the lawyers who worked with them. Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development, LLC v. 12, 2021) Another timeshare company v. timeshare exit company case.

article thumbnail

YouTube Isn’t Liable for User Uploads of Animal Abuse Videos–Lady Freethinker v. YouTube

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Thus, Lady Freethinker sued YouTube for breach of contract and related claims. (A The underlying legal principles are not complicated: content rules in TOSes are negative behavioral restrictions on authors’ conduct, not marketing or contractual promises to readers that such content will never appear on the site.

article thumbnail

claims to fill a gap in the market are puffery

43(B)log

12, 2022) Plaintiffs sued defendants for copyright infringement, violation of the Lanham Act, breach of contract, and violation of unfair competition law; copyright and breach of contract claims survived a motion to dismiss but the others didn’t. Breach of contract claims survived. CV 22-4735-RSWL-Ex (C.D.