Definition False Advertising Trademark Law 
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
SEPTEMBER 9, 2022
” This definition of a service is an obvious tautology, and it’s also obviously in tension with the First Amendment. McNeil. * Three Keyword Advertising Decisions in a Week, and the Trademark Owners Lost Them All. * Competitor Gets Pyrrhic Victory in False Advertising Suit Over Search Ads–Harbor Breeze v.
43(B)log
APRIL 17, 2023
The court dismissed most of Quincy’s claims (counterfeiting, trademark infringement, and false designation of origin) except for false advertising—a rare (and conceptually sound) approach that other, non-default cases could benefit from. But the unauthorized sale of a genuine product does not violate trademark law.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
SEPTEMBER 28, 2021
.” 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.
43(B)log
AUGUST 9, 2024
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!
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
JANUARY 8, 2024
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.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
OCTOBER 9, 2024
” This definition is typically terrible. ” This definition is typically terrible. Brown Engstrand * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law v. Bye, Goff * Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. This is a very unfortunate development IMO.
SpicyIP
DECEMBER 30, 2023
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. The central issue here was whether Section 3(i) is restricted to only in vivo tests practices on the human body. Bolt Technology v.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
129 
Let's personalize your content