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
Skillz sued its competitor Papaya, alleging falseadvertising under federal and state law. screenshot from alleged astroturf website Papaya also alleged that Skillz had engaged in copyright and trademark infringement by copying specific games. Skillz Platform Inc. Papaya Gaming, Ltd., 2025 WL 438387, 24cv1646(DLC) (S.D.N.Y.
” This definition of a service is an obvious tautology, and it’s also obviously in tension with the First Amendment. And how can consumers be “diverted” with the ad copy accurately previewed what consumers could expect to get at the link terminus? None of this is diversion; it’s consumer education.
Wowwee sells a line of dolls called “My Avastars,” which plaintiffs allege were “copied directly from Roblox’s Classic Avatars.” Looking at the side by side pictures in the complaint, this is a bit hard to swallow, but the evidence of copying/references to Roblox clearly bleed over from the TM side.
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 Ripps’s collection has sold out in 15 days, producing a revenue of 1,023.03
Bimbo sells Grandma Sycamore’s Home-Maid Bread; it sued defendants, who include the baker who developed the Grandma Sycamore’s recipe, for trade secret misappropriation, trade dress infringement, and falseadvertising when it sold a comparable bread product, Grandma Emilie’s, with the tagline “Fresh.
Atari’s copyright infringement lawsuit against State Farm advances, underscoring the importance of careful clearance in advertising. It looks like Jake from State Farm is definitely going to blow through his deductible, as the insurance giant lost its bid to declare game over on a lawsuit brought by video game publisher Atari Interactive.
1, 2024) NYU Langone sued Northwell for trade dress infringement, unfair competition and false designation of origin, and falseadvertising under the Lanham Act, as well as related claims under the New York GBL and New York common law. The court dismissed the complaint—the falseadvertising claims with prejudice.
.” 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.”
In reaching its holding, the Court found that “Congress intended to limit the definition of ‘inventor’ to natural persons” which means humans – not artificial intelligence. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached. at *17-18.
Whatever legal ambiguity might have existed then has been decisively resolved, at least with respect to competitive keyword ads that don’t use the trademark in the ad copy. This ruling doesn’t address the scenario where the advertiser’s ad copy references the trademark. Google (4th Circuit). Actual Confusion.
Although expressing some skepticism, the court found that they stated a valid falseadvertising claim. Thus, Universal argued that the alleged misrepresentation was too vague and non-specific to definitely represent that viewers would see De Armas or her segment in the movie. But explicit misstatements aren’t required.
The copy of the brochure deposited with the copyright office is 50 pages long and consists primarily of photographs depicting products and product features purportedly available from ‘ColorCopper.com.’” There’s a similar copyright registration for this site. 1” therein. They did not do so here, so the court dismissed the trade dress claims.
Nor could the state short-circuit constitutional analysis by adopting definitions of, e.g., “chorizo.” “[T]he simple use of a word frequently used in relation to animal-based meats does not make use of that word in a different context inherently misleading.” Thus, Central Hudson applied.
The court says there can’t be MULTIPLE instances of INITIAL interest confusion: By definition, initial interest confusion is “confusion that creates initial customer interest.” the rival included ad copy telling consumers they were buying the trademark owner’s items when they weren’t. LoanStreet v.
24, 2023) Previous decision here —really interesting attack on internet arbitrage; defendant copied Krikor’s eBay memorabilia photos and listed the memorabilia on its own site with a markup; anyone who bought from defendant would actually have defendant buy from Krikor and drop-shipped to the purchaser. Nor was the use of the photos fair use.
ICC develops model building codes and standards; it sued a competitor, UpCodes, for falseadvertising (Lanham Act, NY GBL, and common law unfair competition). ICC also publishes “Custom Codes” that integrate these amendments into its codes; it sells physical and electronic copies of both kinds of codes. UpCodes Inc.,
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.
So too w/falseadvertising. Assumptions skipped over in TM/falseadvertising analysis.] That’s where disclosure rules need the most attention: definition and relation to what courts are going to do with the registration. It’s market definition. The definition expanded far beyond packaging/display.
21, 2023) ExeGi sued Brookfield for state and federal falseadvertising/tortious interference. ExeGi Pharma, LLC v. Brookfield Pharmaceuticals, LLC, F.Supp.3d 3d -, 2023 WL 3142311, No. 20-CV-192-JPS (E.D. The court here resolves only the Lanham Act claims, partially in ExeGi’s favor. The parties compete in the market for probiotics.
The Court held that “diagnostic” under Section 3(i) should neither be construed narrowly, limited to only in-vivo or definitive diagnosis, nor broadly to include any process “relating to” diagnosis. The central issue here was whether Section 3(i) is restricted to only in vivo tests practices on the human body. HULM Entertainment v.
The rival bought competitive keyword ads (the court uses the term “conquesting,” which I objected to here ) but didn’t include the third-party trademark in the ad copy. Here’s an example: Competitive keyword advertising by law firms has been a source of trouble for years. Mark Similarity. ” PREACH.
Ortho black trade dress This was sufficiently definite; it didn’t include terms like “such as” or “for example,” which can be problematic. Scotts alleged that the products do not provide the advertised protection for up to 12 months or 365 days; that was sufficient to allege falsity.
Copying may be directly costless to the knowledge creator, but knowledge transfer is not, and who is initiating may affect what’s going on here: knowledge transfer encodes voluntariness which fits with Cicero but not with a lot of the copying to which people object today. I don’t think that’s true either. 3) Functionality.
A: definitely could be a factor. You can copy a Rembrandt and do a beautiful job but it’s not a Rembrandt.” Herman Miller brings claims of unfair competition, false association, falseadvertising, right of publicity, TM rights including dilution, claiming designer’s name, model names, and shape of the design.
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. We like copying!
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