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. That is, falseadvertising was sufficiently pled as to statements that games on Skillzs platforms did not use bots, matched players evenly, and allowed users to withdraw funds at any time. Skillz Platform Inc. Papaya Gaming, Ltd.,
22, 2022) The court here allows an antitrust claim to proceed based in part on allegedly false/misleading statements because they form part of the alleged anticompetitive product-hopping scheme and because the unique characteristics of the drug market make market-based responses to falseadvertising difficult.
The parties previously partnered nonexclusively so that PureThink would sell and support the commercial version of Neo4j; upon termination, PureThink expressly agreed to “cease using any trademarks, service marks and other designations of Plaintiffs.” Summary judgment granted on state and federal falseadvertising claims.
The court dismissed most of Quincy’s claims (counterfeiting, trademark infringement, and falsedesignation of origin) except for falseadvertising—a rare (and conceptually sound) approach that other, non-default cases could benefit from. Even after default.
Roblox sued for copyright infringement, falseadvertising, trademark infringement, false association and falsedesignation of origin, trade dress infringement, intentional interference with contractual relations, breach of contract, and falseadvertising and unfair competition under California law.
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.
Plaintiff alleges that subscribers “universally understand[ ] that a product designated ‘O’ is an [over-the-counter (“OTC”) ] drug, available over-the-counter and without physician supervision.” Although Alfasigma’s products were historically designated as F, First Databank reclassified them as O.
Scotts alleged rights in its red mark, black trade dress, black label, and yellow barrier design that were allegedly infringed by competitor SBM’s competing products. A product name is placed between the pentagon design and the information bars. At least the court is equally lenient with TM and falseadvertising?
24, 2023) Courts in particular kinds of falseadvertising cases say that scientific claims are not falsifiable, even as the majority of workaday falseadvertising claims involving scientific fact are (correctly) treated as falsifiable. American Soc’y of Anesthesiologists, Inc., 4th -, 2023 WL 2621131, No. 22-1411 (3d Cir.
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.
The Toyota parts sold by Allen Interchange and Toyota bear the same part number, and according to Allen Interchange, are identical in design, function, and quality. Lanham Act falseadvertising: Allen alleged that Toyota’s statements that “[t]he purchase. The court declined to dismiss the counterclaims.
2024) The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of KIND on Bustamante’s falseadvertising consumer protection class action claims based on KIND’s “All Natural” labeling. Bustamante v. KIND, LLC, 100 F.4th 4th 419 (2d Cir. Nor did he specifically analyze KIND ingredients, only how they were “typically” sourced.
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. There’s no written agreement” will do it.]
Perhaps overreacting, Wakefern sued for trademark infringement and falseadvertising in violation of the Lanham Act and violation of state unfair competition law, which is coextensive and thus disappears from our story. Falseadvertising: Not commercial advertising or promotion.
WatsonSeal Marketing sued for falseadvertising under the Lanham Act, tortious interference with business relations under Alabama law, and unjust enrichment under Alabama law, but, having kicked out the Lanham Act claims, the court didn’t proceed any further with the state claims.
11, 2023) The parties compete in the design of buckling-restrained braces, which are structural devices that help buildings withstand seismic activity. The Design Manual also included several technical drawings of BRBs, which allegedly infringed plaintiff Core-Brace’s registered drawings. SME Steel Contractors, Inc.
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.
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.” Considering the label as a whole, the court found Tofurky’s use of the terms not inherently misleading. Thus, Central Hudson applied.
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.
As for the positivity of the ads, “consumer surveys in falseadvertising cases commonly display the challenged advertisement.” Also, the fact that he acknowledged that there were other definitions of “sneakerhead” and that the group is heterogeneous wasn’t a “fatal” flaw meriting exclusion as opposed to cross-examination.
Enigma sued its competitor Malwarebytes for Lanham Act falseadvertising and NY business torts for designating its products as “malicious,” “threats,” and “potentially unwanted programs” (PUPs). The district court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that these designations were “non-actionable statements of opinion.”
9, 2023) Simpson sued MiTek for Lanham Act and state law falseadvertising/passing off, and for copyright infringement. Each product name has a “part name” (a letter or combination of letters designating the product line) and a “model number” (additional numbers and letters that distinguish parts with different attributes).
The court reasoned that, although the words at issue—“malicious” and “threat”—were not themselves advertisements, “Enigma has alleged facts permitting an inference in its favor that Malwarebytes makes the speech in an advertising context.” The court disagreed. The disclosures weren’t dispositive at the motion to dismiss stage.
They are: the Unfair Competition Law (UCL); the FalseAdvertising Law (FAL); and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). While they often cover the same conduct in falseadvertising cases and are cumulative of each other, they have differences. UCL: The UCL, California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.,
5, 2024) Abbott Laboratories’s Glucerna line of powders and shakes are marketed as scientifically designed for people with diabetes to help manage blood sugar. The challenged language includes “to help manage blood sugar,” “#1 doctor recommended brand,” and “scientifically designed for people with diabetes.” 3d -, 2024 WL 2843092, No.
6, 2023) Norman sued Gerber for allegedly falselyadvertising its baby food/infant formula products as “NON GMO Not Made With Genetically Engineered Ingredients” on the front of the package, and also on the back above the ingredients list. Gerber Prods. 2023 WL 122910, No. 21-cv-09940-JSW (N.D.
It contracts with Charities Aid Foundation of America, which in turn delivers donated funds to designated charities. For certain “celebrity experiences,” 60% of the money donated goes to CAFA to be paid to the designated charity, but for Omaze-owned campaigns, Omaze keeps 85%. Omaze now buys its own swag for contests.
Businesses harm consumers only in a few ways—falseadvertising, monopoly prices, defective products. Role definitions can render certain interpretations “irrational.” Essential facilities is designed to deal w/a specific kind of bottleneck—telecom, bridge, road—a channel that’s needed. A: they are very close.
She also alleged that USDA and FDA definitions of “free-range” are more akin to those views. Its website is “nelliesfreerange.com,” and the phrase “free-range” was stated throughout separately from the “Certified Humane” designation. She alleged reliance and a price premium. Defendants argued that the statement was merely puffery.
The earlier definition used in the case was heavily dependent on now-abandoned “Non GMO” claims. Without the GMO context, the court found that there was no objective definition of “all natural.” Note: That’s not logically true: each could be a reasonable consumer’s definition, but reasonable consumers could be all over the map.
The allegedly fraudulent reviews qualified as deceptive acts under the relevant UDAP laws, as did falselyadvertising rental listings as “verified,” “authentic,” and “available.” Misrepresentations that are false because they are not real—they were made up and paid for—can never by definition be “puffery.”
Tolling requires plausible allegations that the defendant undertook an affirmative act designed or intended. Falseadvertising: potential laches problems, though defendants didnt show prejudice (shouldnt the burden be on LLT to plead around it where laches is pled on the face of the complaint?).
And it calls into question the broad definition of "affiliation" confusion that courts have adopted--often by assuming that "affiliation" in the Lanham Act means whatever consumers think it means in response to survey questions, although it could reasonably be read more strongly or consumers could be educated/asked for their definitions thereof.
The court thought that the lack of actual recycling was “extrinsic” to the product—not the product’s fault (despite falseadvertising’s strict liability)—while the lack of RIC designations was “intrinsic.” There’s also a label on the back of the package: “CHECK YOUR LOCAL MUNICIPALITY FOR RECYCLING GUIDELINES.”
He didn’t need to design the algorithm before certification; ascertainability is a “modest threshold requirement [that] will only preclude certification if a proposed class definition is indeterminate in some fundamental way.”
In isolation, stating a company or product is “green,” “sustainable,” or otherwise “eco-friendly” may seem like innocuous marketing provided there is no regulated definition of these terms. “little FTC Act” for being modeled after the FTC Act), as well as a count for unjust enrichment.
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.
She does not expect advertisers to lie to her, nor should any consumer be expected to endure affirmative misrepresentations or strongly misleading claims. But she understands nuance and context, and that when making her purchasing decisions, all representations made by a seller are designed to sell.
Moreover, even if some buyers knew that JUUL had nicotine and others didn’t, that didn’t affect the materiality of the claims that plaintiffs alleged defendants made: “that JUUL products were portrayed as healthy but engineered and designed to make them more addictive and that use of those products created health hazards.”
In fact, the name “Shelby” comes from Carroll Shelby, a race car driver and designer for Ford in the mid-20th century. This “Limp Mode” was an intentional design choice; the coolers were removed from those two packages before launch, allegedly to increase profit margins in their volume-leading Technology package.
” I’ll focus on the falsedesignation of origin claim regarding Troia’s keyword ads. ” This definition of a service is an obvious tautology, and it’s also obviously in tension with the First Amendment. The post Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute FalseAdvertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet
Yet, of the five Shelby trims, the Base and Technology trims lacked “transmission and differential coolers,” a feature—originally included as standard on all Shelbys—that is designed to prevent engine overheating. But a previous case decided by a court under the consumer protection statute dealing with that situation would.
Other examples: design patent, as Sarah Burstein has writte n. We know that automated systems designed to flag infringements get lots of false positives b/c they can’t recognize fair use; may also be false negatives, though that’s not the focus. McGeveran: that’s definitely Wal-Mart. NYU Press, 2016).
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. If the latter, then the definition will pick up smallish online retailers that have small marketplace components.
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