Remove Contracts Remove False Advertising Remove Reporting
article thumbnail

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

43(B)log

In reliance, AHBP allegedly hired employees and designers, consulted with lawyers, accountants, biologists and virologists, rented warehouse and office space, and entered into contracts with buyers in Argentina. the Lanham Act false advertising claim survived. Comment: This is a proximate cause question.

article thumbnail

handful of bad Amazon reviews make Energizer's false advertising claims plausible

43(B)log

16, 2021) Along with breach of contract and tortious interference claims, Energizer alleged that MTA falsely advertised by selling batteries with Energizer’s mark and then by fulfilling orders with products different from those advertised and shipping batteries to consumers that were “used, aged, or tampered-with.”

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

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. First, the court rejected the argument that Rule 9(b) applied to the false advertising claims.

article thumbnail

detailed examination of harm story dooms FedEx's false advertising claim

43(B)log

As alleged, Each ISP’s contract grants it a certain service area, or “route,” and the ISP is permitted to sell its route to another entity if they can agree on terms. Together they are known as CSPs, contracted service providers. FedEx also points to a report by a business analyst based on data “for 100 ISP businesses.

article thumbnail

“Private” Facebook Groups Aren’t Legally “Private”–Davis v. HDR

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

HDR offers “strategic communications” services to their clients, which includes monitoring and reporting on community sentiment/conversations about their projects. Perhaps the false pretenses could give rise to claims not alleged in this case? Breach of contract, perhaps?

Privacy 144
article thumbnail

Ten things to know about NFTs

The IPKat

Digital assets can be protected by IP and have always been capable of being licensed or assigned via a contract, or protected as a trade mark. There have also been complaints where creators have tried to NFT their own creativity but by doing so have breached a contract.

article thumbnail

dueling SJ motions lose in energy drink case; jury will decide whether "Super Creatine" is "creatine"

43(B)log

Monster alleged that VPX falsely advertised 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.”