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. In 2016, Dawgs added new asserted counterclaims against Crocs, including a claim for falseadvertising under the Lanham Act. Crocs largely prevailed in those actions. 1125(a)(1)(B) (Section 43 of the Lanham Act).
The First Amendment has long coexisted with no-fault falseadvertising laws. Citing Dastar and Rogers ; noting in a footnote that Dastar suggested that Lanham Act falseadvertising claims might sometimes govern statements about artistic provenance without raising any First Amendment concern.] City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d
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.
Plaintiffs sued for falseadvertising and false endorsement under the Lanham Act, violation of their right to publicity, deceptive trade practices under New York GBL Section 349, and defamation. 2021), which considered all these claims except for falseadvertising. The court was guided by Electra v. 3d 233 (2d Cir.
May 19, 2023) Whereas the timeshare falseadvertising cases might be making law largely applicable to other timeshare cases, what’s going on in the strip club advertising cases might have somewhat broader implications. The district court concluded that plaintiffs’ false endorsement claims were foreclosed by Electra v.
Chesney also performed on the Lounge’s beachfront stage at a 2014 concert broadcast as “Kenny Chesney: Live at the Flora-Bama” on Country Music Television (CMT), a Viacom channel. Deliberate copying was irrelevant. The agreement granting CMT a license to broadcast that program does not mention Plaintiffs. Yet both artists won.”
Relying extensively on the rationale of the Single Judge’s order, the Division Bench held that Section 31D specifically deals only with Radio and Television Broadcasting. The judgement was passed in October 2022, but was uploaded in September 2023 on the High Court’s website. HULM Entertainment v. d) Other IP Developments 1.
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