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. ” Dawgs appealed.

article thumbnail

copying competitor's website & reviews creates (c), TM, false advertising problems

43(B)log

Boston Suburban allegedly continued to use the “Logan Car Service” mark in online keyword advertising and in metatags, and continued to copy customer reviews from Boston Carriage’s website and publish them on online review platforms.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute False Advertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet v. Troia

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

.” I’ll focus on the false designation of origin claim regarding Troia’s keyword ads. Troia claimed that he did not use the LoanStreet trademark in commerce. Just referencing a trademark on the Internet does not support a trademark claim, full stop. The court displays some of the ads: Use in Commerce.

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.” 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.

Copying 94
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

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

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

In an April 2023 summary judgment ruling , the plaintiff established that it “possesses the legally protectable, incontestable trademarks TEXAS TAMALE and TEXAS TAMALE COMPANY.” The court said that the trademark owner had been using the trademark since 1985 and registered the trademark in 2006. ” Uh oh.

Trademark 100
article thumbnail

competitor's copying of photos doesn't inherently inflict competitive harm

43(B)log

Each webpage that contained one of McCleese’s photos also contained Natorp’s own trademark and copyright symbols at the top and bottom. Along with copyright claims, McCleese asserted Lanham Act false advertising claims. Now do trademark standing.) The parties disagree about how and whether they were authorized to do so.

Copying 64