Remove Definition Remove False Advertising Remove Marketing Remove Trademark Law
article thumbnail

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

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

” This definition of a service is an obvious tautology, and it’s also obviously in tension with the First Amendment. So by the time the court says “the parties are vying for users in the same ‘market,'” you know that the judge has lost the thread. ” So why wasn’t that dispositive?

article thumbnail

IPSC Breakout 3: Trademark and Unfair Competition

43(B)log

Mary Catherine Amerine, Reasonably Careless Consumers in False Advertising and Trademark Consumers can devote much more (or less) time to a decision than seems rational for the amount of risk/benefit in their lives. Court expects consumers to be reasonably prudent in both TM and false advertising. But, surprise!

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Internal Search Results Aren’t Trademark Infringing–PEM v. Peninsula

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The trademark owner argued that the customers may have been directed via initial interest confusion to the rival website. The court says there can’t be MULTIPLE instances of INITIAL interest confusion: By definition, initial interest confusion is “confusion that creates initial customer interest.” LoanStreet v.

article thumbnail

The SHOP SAFE Act Is a Terrible Bill That Will Eliminate Online Marketplaces

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

.” Clearly, the second part of that definition targets Amazon and other major marketplaces, such as eBay, Walmart Marketplace, and Etsy. The first part of the definition includes services with “publicly interactive features that allow for arranging the sale or purchase of goods.” Lack of State Preemption.

Trademark 138
article thumbnail

Cardozo A&ELJ symposium, Trademark

43(B)log

Panel #2, TM, moderated by Vice Dean Felix Wu Jack Daniels says that use as a trademark is special: like copyright’s bête noire, confusion caused by trademark use is the central concern of trademark law. That doesn’t mean that 43(a) couldn’t go beyond classic trademark protection. Then, in Lexmark v.

article thumbnail

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2023

SpicyIP

The Court held that “diagnostic” under Section 3(i) should neither be construed narrowly, limited to only in-vivo or definitive diagnosis, nor broadly to include any process “relating to” diagnosis. On March 13, the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte interim injunction in Markets and Markets Research Pvt. Bolt Technology v.

IP 112
article thumbnail

WIPIP: Innovation Theory & TM

43(B)log

We can make things excludable through tech and law, making things that previously looked like public goods providable by private markets. Book project: how do we reconcile that with our intuitions about markets and distributive justice? A few say that you can’t use marketing messages other than what they approve.