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.
Someone has referred you here because you’ve said something wrong about the laws related to web scraping in the United States. You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About The First Amendment.” Trademark, copyright, trespass to chattels, the law of online contracts—none of this stuff is novel. Don’t worry!
Thus, some but not all breach of contract claims survived. References in Columbia’s marketing materials to “the on-campus experience” were often mere puffery “too vague to be enforced as a contract,” such as a statement in a University publication that “Columbia is an in-person kind of place.” So too for similar Pace claims.
12, 2023) Following a large verdict for Monster on falseadvertising claims, this opinion discusses extensively the requirements for injunctive relief in falseadvertising cases. A lost customer may constitute the loss of a relationship with a customer as well as reference to other potential customers.”
Entrepreneur’s desire to bring forth a claim for falseadvertising against a competitor in a similar market is not unusual behavior.” Along with adding a defendant, Entrepreneur might eventually be allowed to add a falseadvertising claim, based on facts that were allegedly discovered only during Roach’s deposition.
AB allegedly began advertising for a similar product, claiming that its load bars have “30% more Holding Power than similar Disposable Load Bars,” allegedly an admitted reference to Logistick. 15, 2021) Logistick sells disposable load bars which are used to secure cargo freight during transport.
It does so at the Rose Bowl Stadium under three contracts with Pasadena, including a Master License Agreement, Trademark Agreement, and Trademark Consent Agreement. PTRA argued that, because Pasadena has referred to the Rose Bowl Game as “the game” in the past, the Rose Bowl Game was readily identifiable without using the term.
The lawyer defendants allegedly interfered with the timeshare contracts by (1) participating in the marketing defendants’ false and misleading advertising; (2) encouraging or directing the nonpayment of fees owed to Diamond; and (3) keeping the owners in the dark regarding the adverse financial consequences resulting from the nonpayment of fees.
In characterizing Section 230, every reference to “immunize” is changed to “‘protect.” The prior opinion contained two references to Section 230 as “broad.” Courts have rejected Section 230 defenses against claims for falseadvertising, deceptive trade practices, and tortious interference.
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.
Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract under Tennessee common law and falseadvertising in violation of the Lanham Act. (OK, OK, I’m not a big false endorsement fan, but … isn’t this false endorsement? Plaintiffs terminated an agreement to insure Securranty Inc.’s Insert your own insurance-related pun.)
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.
This is a falseadvertising lawsuit again the mobile app game Game of Thrones: Conquest. Also, the district court took issue with the 2020 call-to-action referring to the TOS as “Terms of Use” when it was actually the “Terms of Service.” sought to send the case to arbitration. Warner Bros.
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.”
He paid money to get extra visibility for his dating profile and claims he got poor results, so he sued Bumble for falseadvertising. Second, the text of the blocker card included both a call-to-action (could have been better, but OK) and reference to the arbitration clause. Alkutkar used the dating app Bumble.
4, 2022) Frequent IP claimant Lisa Frank is in court this time over a failed deal with a vegan cosmetics company, whose contract aspects I will ignore. Lanham Act falseadvertising: Were the statements “commercial advertising or promotion” even though not in a conventional ad? CV-21-00228-TUC-SHR, 2022 WL 3098042 (D.
5-hour Energy [a frequent litigant in this space] sued mainly over trademark infringement, but also alleged falseadvertising (and trademark dilution). The Policy here defines Advertising Injury as an injury “arising out of oral or written publication of material that libels or slanders.
She allegedly falsely represented that she was authorized to deliver Londra’s “recording artist and songwriting services. Big Ligas sued for tortious interference and for falseadvertising and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. Falseadvertising: “That Ms. This was a contract dispute, not a Yu problem.
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.
Defendants NGT and NGE advertised an ability to help customers terminate their timeshare contract or ownership; other defendants were part of the exit process. As detailed below, none of the advertising specifically mentioned Diamond, nor did it direct, instruct nor encourage consumers to stop paying on their timeshare obligations.
But this doesn’t seem to provide a private right of action; Brown Bottling argued that its references to the Soft Drink Act in its complaint were just providing pertinent history/context for the unfair competition/tortious interference claims. As the licensee, Brown Bottling had “standing to bring false affiliation claims under Section 43(a).”
Normally trademark owners aren’t third-party beneficiaries of that contract. Any error on country-of-origin disclosures sets up the third-party sellers for falseadvertising claims. Per Malwarebytes , the online marketplace should qualify for Section 230 protection for the Lanham Act falseadvertising claims).
2024) The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of FedEx’s falseadvertising claims (under the Lanham Act and Tennessee Consumer Protection Act), albeit on somewhat different grounds. Collectively they’re called “contracted service providers” (CSPs). Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. Route Consultant, Inc., 23-5456, F.4th
Falseadvertising: Overjet challenged statements that allegedly falsely indicated that (1) “Videa’s software is safe and effective for various medical purposes,” even though it had not obtained the relevant FDA clearance, and (2) it had “reached a technological milestone in AI development before Overjet.” Overjet, Inc.
Qoins also referred to SouthState in its responses to customer reviews, saying it was responsible for withholding funds. This was all allegedly false and misleading (given that Qoins customers were not SouthState customers, they weren’t FDIC insured). But SouthState did have standing for a falseadvertising claim.
The complaint alleged that Sirius XM didn’t adequately disclose the Fee in its ads, such as this one: mailer The promotional rate is prominently displayed, but there’s no express reference to the Fee. Like its mailers, Sirius XM’s promotional materials also don’t expressly refer to the Fee. note: bad practice!]) And, under Mantikas v.
28, 2022) Wound Care is a Medicare-enrolled supplier of surgical wound dressings to patients in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities nationwide under nonexclusive agreements; mostly facilities enter supply contracts with Wound Care on behalf of their patients under an assignment of benefits issued to the facilities by the patients.
The Court found that although both Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and contract claims had the same underlying facts—which were clearly related to rates and services—the plaintiffs’ claim was preempted but the contract claim could proceed. Wolens, 513 U.S.
3, 2021) SquareTrade sells service contracts for the protection of consumer goods. Abbott alleged that she was misled because she saw references to “protection” on a brochure that she didn’t read and a sales clerk used the word “warranty” in describing the plan. SquareTrade Inc., 2021 WL 5113176, No. 20-cv-02725-JCS (N.D.
For example, a 2020 buying guide, after plaintiffs filed suit, inserted a disclaimer that “CHP motor ratings refer to the motor power achieved in a testing facility. But even if defendants’ interpretations were reasonable, and other sources shared defendants’ view, that didn’t make plaintiffs’ understandings implausible.
It contracts with Charities Aid Foundation of America, which in turn delivers donated funds to designated charities. By itself, then, a mere reference to “donation” could not be an affirmative misrepresentation [this is again a normative judgment, not an empirical one: it simply does not matter what reasonable audiences think].
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.
21, 2023) ExeGi sued Brookfield for state and federal falseadvertising/tortious interference. Although there don’t seem to have been surveys on this, “[m]ost of the public and some clinicians incorrectly refer to genus and species as ‘strains.’” ExeGi Pharma, LLC v. Brookfield Pharmaceuticals, LLC, F.Supp.3d 20-CV-192-JPS (E.D.
Also, “the entirety of the advertisement on each website page describes in objective terms how much total food customers would receive.” They had calorie information, and Wendy’s said theirs was made with a “quarter-pound*” of beef with the asterisk referring to “[a]pproximate weight before cooking.”
Its website says: “Our Whopper Sandwich is a ¼ lb* of savory flame-grilled beef topped with juicy tomatoes, fresh lettuce, creamy mayonnaise, ketchup, crunchy pickles, and sliced white onions on a soft sesame seed bun,” with the asterisk after the burger’s weight referring to the “[w]eight based on a pre-cooked patty.”
The court kicked out quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and restitution claims with leave to amend and claims for injunctive relief without leave to amend, but otherwise sustained the basic consumer protection theory. Finally, the court declined to dismiss a nationwide class at this stage.
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. The statutory reference to the corporation’s “own” profit couldn’t be extended to “insiders,” “related businesses,” or “officers.” [I’m
Brandwatch, obtains data from Twitter under a contract, and then offers various tools to analyze its database. asserting that CCDH’s reports were “baseless,” “false or misleading,” and not supported by proper research techniques. The reference in the Quinn letter to 43(a) was interesting.
Many contracts—77%--say sellers can only use marketing claims or materials provided by company; 71% say other claims must be pre-approved (that seems contradictory). 57% say sellers could be liable for false etc. claims, but only 24% reference or explain specific rules. FTC and FDA think this already!
for the losses caused by intentionally and wrongfully interfering with the Debtors’ customer contracts and good will. Comment: This is an interesting question given that TM/advertising people tend to define goodwill differently than general business valuation people, especially in the TM/falseadvertising context.
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.
This can place a brand at risk or give rise to claims of falseadvertising against it. Influencer Contracts with Bold Clauses Essentially, these are clauses dealing with Trademark use in influencer contracts. Confusion can arise in the minds of individuals because of indefinite disclosures or vague messages.
Lanham Act: McKenzie alleged that Defendants made false representations (1) in violation of 1125(a)(1)(A), by claiming that Morgan and ARS ow[n]ed the copyright to the LOVE image, and (2) in violation of 1125(a)(1)(B), by claiming that ARS was authorized to license said copyright. What about falseadvertising?
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