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
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 falseadvertising claim survived. Comment: This is a proximate cause question.
16, 2021) Along with breach of contract and tortious interference claims, Energizer alleged that MTA falselyadvertised 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.”
11, 2021) Another timeshare versus timeshare exit falseadvertising case. Marketing Defendants allegedly falselyadvertise 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 falseadvertising claims.
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.
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?
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.
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.”
Route sued for breach of contract, commercial disparagement and defamation per se, intentional tortious interference with contractual relations, falseadvertising, and contributory trademark infringement. The breach of contract claim survived. Heuberger was a Route customer who then launched a competitor, Navidium.
2, 2022) Before the jury verdict in favor of Monster’s falseadvertising claim was this opinion resolving evidentiary issues. However, they fail to show that Monster dirtied its hands to make the falseadvertising claims now alleged against Defendants.” Monster Energy Co. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2022 WL 17218077, No.
By building the fake springs, the plaintiffs argued, the only way to discover the deception was to spend “years poring over maps, aerial photos, property records, and geology reports,” which kept the plaintiffs’ claims hidden much longer. “If If a jury believes this, I see no reason why Nestlé’s acts would not count as concealment.”
It “began a campaign to systematically contact and try to poach business from Homeowners under exclusive contract with [Plaintiff]. In many instances, [Defendant’s] representatives have made false or misleading statements about [Plaintiff] to these Homeowners.”
Normally trademark owners aren’t third-party beneficiaries of that contract. The mandatory reporting of products’ country of origin is a liability trap. Any error on country-of-origin disclosures sets up the third-party sellers for falseadvertising claims. Country of Origin Problems.
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 alleged that its software products “(i) detect and remove malicious software (i.e.,
It contracts with Charities Aid Foundation of America, which in turn delivers donated funds to designated charities. In 2017, the last year before the switch, Omaze reported approximately $750,000 in revenue, with the substantial majority—approximately $450,000—passed through to CAFA. “In Omaze now buys its own swag for contests.
The third category lists notable developments on the legislative and policy side and includes important amendments, proposals for amendments, release of policy notes and reports etc. 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.
He was personally involved in the relevant conduct, including patenting and reporting to Amazon, so he could be liable for “tortious misuse” of patent and trademark rights.
For example, in response to Washington Post article that purportedly recommended homebuyers use InterNACHI home inspectors rather than ASHI’s, he posted “[t]he reporter failed to note that ASHI (American Society of Home Inspectors) was taken over by NAMBLA on Friday.” InterNACHI was founded by Gromicko, who is quite active on its forum.
Other developments “sharply contracted” the scope of the claims to the “All Natural” claim on three product lines. Nor did plaintiffs’ survey report provide a way to define a reasonable consumer’s understanding of “All Natural,” because the court excluded it. It didn’t, so eventually the case was unpaused.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate is a not for profit organization that publishes reports on among other things, hate speech and disinformation on social media. Brandwatch, obtains data from Twitter under a contract, and then offers various tools to analyze its database. Are the reportsadvertisements?
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.
Rise of Influencing Marketing: A Proprietary Angle Influencer marketing is now a $21-billion industry as per Aspire’s 2024 Influencer Marketing Report. This can place a brand at risk or give rise to claims of falseadvertising against it. Report such infringements immediately using platform reporting mechanism.
For about a decade, courts had realized that IIC had gone way too far, and had expanded liability in ways that didn’t protect consumers and facilitated anticompetitive claims about falseadvertising. 30, 2021) Plaintiff Daniel Abrahams formerly contracted with a publisher to author a series related to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
She then emailed Gordon: [j]ust to confirm I should not be expecting Nancy to come at us to try and secure that weekend since you have a contract with White Elephant correct? She then told a reporter from a local newspaper, I do not anticipate competing festivals.
” By definition, every contract of every type involves a bilateral exchange of contract consideration, so this logic suggests that every contract represents a statutory “sale”? Trump The post Court Revives Indiana AG’s FalseAdvertising Case Against TikTok–State v. TikTok , Nos.
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