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
Dawgs’ (“Dawgs”) counterclaim for falseadvertising under the Lanham Act. This case began back in 2006 when Crocs sued Double Diamond and others for patent infringement of Crocs’s design patents. Crocs largely prevailed in those actions. 1125(a)(1)(B) (Section 43 of the Lanham Act).
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.
” I’ll focus on the falsedesignation of origin claim regarding Troia’s keyword ads. And how can consumers be “diverted” with the ad copy accurately previewed what consumers could expect to get at the link terminus? Defendant cannot now hide under the cloak of cyberspace to escape liability.”
The court simply responds: “the Ninth Circuit has held that Section 230 immunity applies to falseadvertising claims and other claims that are based on purportedly false representations.” Section 230 more clearly applies to third-party ad copy than to the resulting sales. See, e.g., the cited Ynfante v.
It allegedly sold or gave away unauthorized copies of the I-Codes and Custom Codes to both customers and prospective customers. Finally, UpCodes allegedly falsely claimed to be the “only source” of state amendments integrated into the model code, when in fact ICC also offers custom codes on its website. UpCodes, Inc.,
Wolf Designs LLC v. Five 18 Designs LLC, F.Supp.3d 18, 2022) Wolf designs and installs “vehicle wraps,” large vinyl graphics or decals applied to car bodies. Copyright: Three of Wolf’s customers allegedly opted to hire Five 18 to install vehicle wraps featuring designs Wolf owned. But what about falseadvertising?
Most of the claims failed on summary judgment, but part of Woodland’s claim against Fiskars for falseadvertising, based on Fiskars’s statements about the cutting power of its tools, and some of its statements that certain products were designed in the United States, did create factual issues for trial.
He posted the Cube design and 3D print files on Thingiverse.com, the largest site for 3D print objects. Thingiverse cube Kitchen Cube made and sold copies of the Cube. Kitchen Cube also stated on its website that “we designed and manufactured every kitchen measuring device in one easy to use gadget.”
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.
Defendants' letter allegedly copied text from LStar Trademark infringement: LStar never specified what its trademarks or service marks were. It argued that defendants copied, but didn’t identify a particular word, name, or symbol, or combination thereof, within the highlighted paragraphs, as the alleged trademark(s).
Defendants allegedly copied key components of Trackman’s copyrighted software and falsely suggested, in promotions and advertisements, that defendants were authorized to use the well-known courses in their game. Although the court dismissed a contract claim, copyright and falseadvertising claims survived.
3, 2021) The parties compete in the market for custom landscape design services. “[I]n Along with copyright claims, McCleese asserted Lanham Act falseadvertising claims. McCleese v. Natorp’s, Inc., 2021 WL 2270511, No. 1:20-cv-118 (S.D. The parties disagree about how and whether they were authorized to do so.
15, 2023) Simpson sued its competitor MiTek for using Simpson part numbers for structural connectors/fasteners for use in the construction industry in its catalogs/other promotional material; the court here, after a nonjury trial before the magistrate judge, rather comprehensively rejects its falseadvertising, trademark, and copyright claims. (It
24, 2023) WS sued Wayfair, alleging patent infringement, Lanham Act falseadvertising, Massachusetts and California statutory unfair competition and Massachusetts falseadvertising based on alleged copying of West Elm products. Wayfair moved to dismiss the falseadvertising and unfair competition claims.
Design Gaps, Inc. 21, 2023) Design Gaps produces custom cabinetry for high-end homes; Hall is a former employee of Design Gaps who signed a nonsolicitation/noncompete clause but went to work for a design studio that was part of Design Gaps’ main competition, Peters. Hall, 2023 WL 8103156, No.
5, 2021) The plaintiff benefits from very generous treatment of its falsedesignation and copyright claims, in the process stripping falsedesignation of anything other than a prohibition on copying/vitiating both Wal-Mart and Dastar. 2021 WL 1253803, No. 20-cv-06957-VKD (N.D. The court agreed!
The court noted that determining whether a use is de minimis involves both quantitative and qualitative assessments—how much of the copyrighted material was copied and how significant that copying was. The judge dismissed the business disparagement, falseadvertising, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment claims.
Spiralverse removed the original paperback glue bindings from the copies it purchased, punched holes in the pages, and installed spiral bindings. Spiralverse listed its modified copies for sale on Amazon at prices of $29.99 Was this literally false? It’s desirable for making it easier to turn pages for performance etc.
In brief: Meishe argued that Tiktok copied its code via an employee who departed. Falseadvertising: Meishe pointed to statements defendants made in their copyright notice at tiktok.com, in the ByteDance Code of Conduct, in TikTok’s Intellectual Property Policy, and in TikTok’s terms of service. Tiktok Inc., 3d 1156 (N.D.
CC has a recent trademark registration for a design mark “consist[ing] of the stylized wording ‘COLOR COPPER.COM”, [with] a diamond shape between the wording ‘COLOR’ and ‘COPPER’ made up of four smaller diamonds, each diamond having a pattern inside of it,” COPPER.COM disclaimed. “The There’s no written agreement” will do it.] 1” therein.
The Lanham Act claims were styled as false association, “false association with celebrity status,” falsedesignation of origin, and falseadvertising. Allegedly, these statements, plus the use of the horses’ names as given by La Dolfina, constituted falseadvertising and false association.
1, 2024) NYU Langone sued Northwell for trade dress infringement, unfair competition and falsedesignation 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.
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.
After remand, the case went back to the Ninth Circuit, which held that anti-threat classifications might be Lanham Act falseadvertising. That putatively means that the court would characterize all threat identifications as “advertising.” Today I’m blogging the district court decision after that remand.
HBL argued that, based on the parties’ communications, Lite-Netics should have known early on that there was no infringement (consistent with the analysis performed by the district court, which also found that the accused designs didn’t infringe).
It claims to focus on “counterfeits” that could harm consumer “health and safety,” but those are both lies designed to make the bill seem narrower and more balanced than it actually is. However, this bill is itself a giant counterfeit. ” I mean, pretty much every physical product meets this definition, right?
OSD Audio then sued Outlaw under §512(f), and Outlaw counterclaimed for falseadvertising and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, copyright infringement, and trade libel. Lanham Act: The user manual did not constitute “commercial advertising or promotion.” Thus, Outlaw showed likely success on the merits of this claim.
Atari asserts claims not only for copyright infringement but also “business disparagement,” unfair competition and falseadvertising as well. The de minimis defense isn’t often discussed in copyright opinions because lawsuits aren’t typically brought over relatively inconsequential instances of copying.
24, 2022) This seems like a silly result to me, shifting the burden to comparative advertisers, but it's often much harder to get summary judgment in a trademark case than in comparable cases. PennEngineering claims a PEM family of marks and sued Peninsula for trademark infringement, counterfeiting, falseadvertising, and unfair competition.
Although expressing some skepticism, the court found that they stated a valid falseadvertising claim. But buying a limited-time license to stream a digital copy of Yesterday was neither a tangible good nor a service under the CLRA. They allegedly watched the movie because they wanted to see De Armas and the scene in the movie.
Zuluaga told a designer to look at Industria’s website when creating Latinfood’s packaging designs for Zenú and Ranchera and brought one of Industria’s Ranchera labels to the designer’s office. Advertisements made for Latinfood Zenú products used the phrase “una deliciosa tradición,” which translates to “a delicious tradition.”
were valid and infringed, but the latter wasn’t counterfeited; SMRI’s dilution victory was vacated, but not its victories on deceptive trade practices, ACPA, falseadvertising, and unfair competition. The Composite Design Mark registration specifically acknowledged that it made “no claim. apart from the mark as shown.”
Significantly, even intentional copying of a plaintiff’s trademark does not, standing alone, state a misrepresentation claim.” Tapestry, Inc. Chunma USA, Inc., 2021 WL 1534988, No. 20-CV-0271 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. The complaint did “narrowly” state a claim. and [the] Coach” brand.
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.
In fall 2023, Overjet launched its “Anatomical Structures Visualization Tool” for Overjet Caries Assist, which introduced the relevant coloring scheme and design. It also allegedly “selected the design and colors to help with brand identification; the purple, for example, complements Overjet’s purple brand color.” Overjet, Inc.
Further, Tofurky argued that it couldn’t “accurately and effectively describe its products without comparison to the conventional meat products with flavor profiles Tofurky’s products are designed to invoke.” It was also entitled to a permanent injunction against application of parts of the law that copied the FDCA to its existing labels.
The design of its engagement rings is famously called the “Tiffany settings” which is a style of six-prong diamond setting. Under the Lanham Act a trademark infringement occurs when- (1) the subject mark is entitled to protection and (2) when the copied mark is likely to be confused with the subject mark. “A Image Source: gettyimage].
The Court noted that the Patents Act is specifically designed to deal with matters concerning allegations of unreasonable conditions in licence agreements, abuse of one’s status as a patentee, the necessary inquiry into these allegations, and eventually the relief that can be granted. Controller of Patents & Designs Patent Office Mumbai.
Only a few days ago, news was shared online that energy drink brand Alani Nutrition sued Rise UP and an influencer for copyright infringement and falseadvertising due to the allegedly unauthorised reproduction of one of its advertising campaigns. In a nutshell, their outcome often remains uncertain [e.g. here and here ].
This implies that the configuration and arrangement of shapes, designs, colors, materials that form the trade dress will not be protected if it serves a utilitarian purpose. Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act specifically deals with the statutory remedies that are available for falseadvertising.
Russell created four sculptural works: “Medusa,” “Polyp,” “Hydra,” and “Ophelia”; there was a dispute about whether the sculptures resemble or embody natural aspects of real-life jellyfish and whether Russell intentionally designed them to look like freshwater jellyfish.
Kaira also owns common law design marks which are displayed on the websites www.amul.com and www.amuldairy.com. The Defendants were advertising, marketing and selling milk products in Canada through LinkedIn in association with the trademark AMUL and claiming to be Kaira. Kaira also established trademark infringement. Disposition.
So too w/falseadvertising. Assumptions skipped over in TM/falseadvertising analysis.] Color, product design. PTO doesn’t use this categorization—it uses text, design, sound, etc. A: Impetus: some sound marks are treated like text, and others like product design—analytically unsatisfying.
21, 2023) ExeGi sued Brookfield for state and federal falseadvertising/tortious interference. Its label doesn’t list the exact quantity of each bacteria species or strain designation, noting instead that its blend of bacteria is proprietary. ExeGi Pharma, LLC v. Brookfield Pharmaceuticals, LLC, F.Supp.3d 20-CV-192-JPS (E.D.
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