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

Measuring device (c)able under Star Athletica; ignoring Dastar, court also allows false advertising claim

43(B)log

He posted the Cube design and 3D print files on Thingiverse.com, the largest site for 3D print objects. Kitchen Cube also stated on its website that “we designed and manufactured every kitchen measuring device in one easy to use gadget.” False advertising: Only ok against Kitchen Cube. 8-23-cv-01698-MEMF-ADS (C.D.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

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. Nor did significant sales growth linked to the marketing campaign at issue. Natera, Inc.,

article thumbnail

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

43(B)log

In summer 2020, AHBP began negotiating with the Lynd defendants for the exclusive license to market and sell a surface disinfectant/cleaner known as “Bioprotect 500” in Argentina. Ultimately, AHBP took an exclusive license to sell the product in Argentina, with purchasing and advertising/marketing spend minimums.

article thumbnail

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

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Amazon is an ICS provider: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “market” and “sell” products to retail consumers “through internet websites.” I did a quick Westlaw search this morning and couldn’t find another case discussing the 230 implications of the “Amazon Choice” designation.

article thumbnail

An Antitrust Framework for False Advertising, out now

43(B)log

Carrier & Rebecca Tushnet, An Antitrust Framework for False Advertising , 106 Iowa L. 1841 (2021) From the introduction: Federal law presumes that false advertising harms competition. Federal law also presumes that false advertising is harmless or even helpful to competition. This makes no sense.

article thumbnail

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

43(B)log

14, 2021) Dawgs alleged that Crocs falsely marketed its shoes in violation of the Lanham Act by advertising Croslite, the foam material that Crocs shoes are made from, as “patented,” “proprietary,” and “exclusive.” Crocs, Inc. Effervescent, Inc., 2021 WL 4170997, No. 06-cv-00605-PAB-KMT, No. 16-cv-02004-PAB-KMT (D.