article thumbnail

False Patent Marking as False Advertising: Overcoming Dastar

Patently-O

Dawgs’ (“Dawgs”) counterclaim for false advertising under the Lanham Act. This case began back in 2006 when Crocs sued Double Diamond and others for patent infringement of Crocs’s design patents. Crocs largely prevailed in those actions. 1125(a)(1)(B) (Section 43 of the Lanham Act).

article thumbnail

Retailer has standing to assert Lanham Act false advertising claims against its own supplier

43(B)log

In reliance, AHBP allegedly hired employees and designers, consulted with lawyers, accountants, biologists and virologists, rented warehouse and office space, and entered into contracts with buyers in Argentina. the Lanham Act false advertising claim survived. Comment: This is a proximate cause question.

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. ” Following mid-2000s cases like Lamparello and Lucas Nursery , we rarely see such unforgiving anti-griper opinions that twist the Lanham Act to cover circumstances it was never designed to cover. Reyes & Adler v.

article thumbnail

falsely advertising "proprietary" and "exclusive" material isn't actionable under Dastar

43(B)log

Baden, a basketball manufacturer, argued that Molten had engaged in false advertising when Molten claimed that its basketballs were ‘innovative,’ ‘exclusive,’ and ‘proprietary’ when its ‘innovative’ layer of padding beneath the cover was invented by Baden, not Molten.”

article thumbnail

False advertising and TM infringement receive very different damages treatment: case in point

43(B)log

17, 2023) Another entry in the “courts treat Lanham Act false advertising very differently than Lanham Act trademark infringement, despite identical damages provisions” line. CareDx sued Natera for false advertising. Natera, Inc., 19-662-CFC, 2023 WL 4561059 (D. Natera made superiority claims for its Prospera.

article thumbnail

putting a label on a product you produce isn't direct false advertising, but could be direct false association

43(B)log

Plaintiffs’ claims sought to hold the dairy farmers directly or contributorily liable under the Lanham Act, and alleged unfair competition/false advertising/deceptive trade practices under Hawaii law. Was a false geographic origin claim one for false association, § 1125(a)(1)(A), or false advertising, § 1125(a)(1)(B)?

article thumbnail

Section 230 Helps Amazon Defeat False Advertising Lawsuit Over Printer Ink Cartridges–Planet Green v. Amazon

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The court simply responds: “the Ninth Circuit has held that Section 230 immunity applies to false advertising claims and other claims that are based on purportedly false representations.” This argument has failed so many times. See, e.g., the cited Ynfante v. Google opinion. ” Cites to Perfect 10 v.