Remove Copying Remove False Advertising Remove Marketing Remove Reference
article thumbnail

False Patent Marking as False Advertising: Overcoming Dastar

Patently-O

Dawgs’ (“Dawgs”) counterclaim for false advertising under the Lanham Act. In 2016, Dawgs added new asserted counterclaims against Crocs, including a claim for false advertising under the Lanham Act. Crocs largely prevailed in those actions. 1125(a)(1)(B) (Section 43 of the Lanham Act).

article thumbnail

copying/explicit references let Roblox proceed with dubious (c) claim; Lego should be watching

43(B)log

Wowwee sells a line of dolls called “My Avastars,” which plaintiffs allege were “copied directly from Roblox’s Classic Avatars.” Defendants allegedly marketed the My Avastars dolls with a “code” that could be used in the Roblox platform. And defendants’ dolls were “virtually identical” in shape to Roblox’s avatars.

Copying 94
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Monster wins permanent injunction against VPX in false advertising case

43(B)log

12, 2023) Following a large verdict for Monster on false advertising claims, this opinion discusses extensively the requirements for injunctive relief in false advertising cases. Are lost prospective customers and market share purely economic harms? So too with lost market share.

article thumbnail

Using dominant competitor's part names/numbers for comparison isn't false advertising, TM infringement, or (c) infringement

43(B)log

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 false advertising, trademark, and copyright claims. (It

article thumbnail

This Case Keeps Wrecking Internet Law–Enigma v. Malwarebytes

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

After remand, the case went back to the Ninth Circuit, which held that anti-threat classifications might be Lanham Act false advertising. Bolger Factor 1: Advertising the first Bolger factor—whether the statements are an advertisement—to fall slightly in favor of the conclusion that the challenged designations are commercial speech.

Law 59
article thumbnail

TIL: “Texas Tamale” Is an Enforceable Trademark–Texas Tamale v. CPUSA2

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

We usually get ours at the local farmers market.] Still, there should be many circumstances where descriptive fair use permits the defendant to use the term “Texas tamale” in the ad copy. ” More Posts About Keyword Advertising * Internal Search Results Aren’t Trademark Infringing–PEM v. ” Say what?

Trademark 100
article thumbnail

Court Denies Injunction in Competitive Keyword Ad Lawsuit–Nursing CE Central v. Colibri

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Nursing CE Central” is a descriptive mark with “a weak secondary meaning… the plaintiff makes no meaningful showing that the public, or even those in the market in which it competes, readily recognizes its name.” ” Marketing channel. ” Relatedness of goods. The litigants directly compete. Mark similarity.