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
Dawgs’ (“Dawgs”) counterclaim for falseadvertising 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).
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.,
To the extent that the claims lead consumers to believe that Crocs are “made of a material ‘different than any other footwear,’” a difference made credible to consumers by references to patents and/or proprietary knowledge, that is a claim about the physical nature of specific product components, not about authorship.
17, 2023) Another entry in the “courts treat Lanham Act falseadvertising very differently than Lanham Act trademark infringement, despite identical damages provisions” line. CareDx sued Natera for falseadvertising. Natera, Inc., 19-662-CFC, 2023 WL 4561059 (D. Natera made superiority claims for its Prospera.
The design, implementation, and utilization of the relevant defendants’ load balancing software necessitated the their knowledge of the entire scheme: it was designed and used for rotating merchant accounts to avoid detection of a scheme to defraud consumers.
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.
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.
Although in the copyright decision, the court made reference to “rather surprising oversights,” UpCodes corrected issues when notified by ICC. UpCodes, Inc., 2021 WL 1236106, Nos. 6261 (VM) & 20 Civ. 4316 (VM) (S.D.N.Y.
15, 2023) Simpson sued its competitor MiTek for using Simpson part numbers for structural connectors/fasteners for use in the construction industry in its catalogs/other promotional material; the court here, after a nonjury trial before the magistrate judge, rather comprehensively rejects its falseadvertising, trademark, and copyright claims. (It
JC Penny, for example, has been hit with a class action lawsuit in the Southern District of California over its alleged advertising practice of using “falsereference pricing.” The products, Carranza claims , were never sold at the listed reference price as advertised. Do the claims have merit?
Someone has referred you here because you’ve said something wrong about the laws related to web scraping in the United States. You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About The First Amendment.” The prior part explained the most recent ruling, a devastating but not unexpected loss for hiQ. Don’t worry! You’re not alone.
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.
7, 2022) The court upheld a contempt finding based on an underlying falseadvertising claim. Also, a press release that discussed separate litigation in Italy about who owned VSL#3’s bacterial strains, unfairly compared VSL#3 and Visbiome referred to plaintiffs’ “aggressive efforts to sell their competing, generic probiotic product.”
Amgen argued that there was no impact because the ads didn’t refer to Sandoz or Ziextenzo, and Sandoz couldn’t identify a single patient, prescriber, or insurer that would have used Ziextenzo but chose Onpro because of the advertising claims. Sandoz Inc. 2023 WL 4681569 , No. 2:22-cv-05326-RGK-MARx (C.D.
17, 2020) A lot of stuff here; I will ignore the non-falseadvertising related aspects of this mostly antitrust case. The court says the usual not-good things about falseadvertising’s relationship to antitrust, unfortunately: Deceptive speech usually doesn’t violate antitrust laws. 17-md-2785-DDC-TJJ (D.
JC Penny, for example, has been hit with a class action lawsuit in the Southern District of California over its alleged advertising practice of using “falsereference pricing.” The products, Carranza claims , were never sold at the listed reference price as advertised. Do the claims have merit?
24, 2023) WS sued Wayfair, alleging patent infringement, Lanham Act falseadvertising, Massachusetts and California statutory unfair competition and Massachusetts falseadvertising based on alleged copying of West Elm products. Wayfair moved to dismiss the falseadvertising and unfair competition claims.
were not designed to protect originality or creativity.” “Yet Yet that is precisely what Plaintiff seeks to protect in this case: the originality and novelty of its own cooler design.” There was no meaningful distinction between claims of being the “first” and claims of inventorship.
This is a falseadvertising lawsuit again the mobile app game Game of Thrones: Conquest. The design elements use “a contrasting font color” making the notice legible on the dark background. The account formation process included a screen where a user could proceed only by clicking on the “play” button: Warner Bros.
5, 2021) The plaintiff benefits from very generous treatment of its falsedesignation and copyright claims, in the process stripping falsedesignation of anything other than a prohibition on copying/vitiating both Wal-Mart and Dastar. 2021 WL 1253803, No. 20-cv-06957-VKD (N.D. The court agreed!
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.
GMP owns two federally registered trademarks: the “GOOD MEAT” standard character mark and the “GOOD MEAT BREAKDOWN” design mark. The court denies a preliminary injunction on the trademark claims based on lack of likely success on the merits, but declines to dismiss either infringement or falseadvertising claims.
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.
Design Gaps, Inc. 21, 2023) Design Gaps produces custom cabinetry for high-end homes; Hall is a former employee of Design Gaps who signed a nonsolicitation/noncompete clause but went to work for a design studio that was part of Design Gaps’ main competition, Peters. Hall, 2023 WL 8103156, No.
Plaintiff alleged that Sazerac designed this malt version to look just like the original one, misleading consumers in violation of New York laws on deceptive practices and falseadvertising. Sazerac didn’t explain why it couldn’t use “Malt Beverage with Natural Flavors” (or some other general reference) instead.
PennEngineering claims a PEM family of marks and sued Peninsula for trademark infringement, counterfeiting, falseadvertising, and unfair competition. the design Peninsula, like PennEngineering, makes floating fasteners with square-in-square designs. Nor did the existence of other designs disprove functionality.
That supplier worked with a foreign supplier to mimic the Stiles Razor, using “photographs and physical samples of the Stiles razor as references.” The remaining design patent claims also failed. The accused design’s grip was also contoured and textured, not angular and smooth.
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.]
Elysium argued that Right of Assembly was “a marketing website for Tru Niagen for which ChromaDex pays commissions to Shelly Albaum for Tru Niagen customers referred through the website.” Thus, any falseadvertising claim would lie against Albaum, not [directly] against ChromaDex.
After remand, the case went back to the Ninth Circuit, which held that anti-threat classifications might be Lanham Act falseadvertising. That putatively means that the court would characterize all threat identifications as “advertising.” Bolger Factors 2 and 3: Reference to Specific Product and Economic Motivation.
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. However, this bill is itself a giant counterfeit. Unlike the other services, these services get a 6 month phase-in period).
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. Nor was it concededly an ad.
11, 2024) I have a long-running interest in Rule 68 offers of judgment, and this case involves an interaction with falseadvertising law! This judgment of infringement comes nearly one year to the day after Crocs filed lawsuits against 21 companies alleging infringement of its registered trademark rights in its clog designs. …
To Be or Not To Be (Design): Calcutta HC Sways Against Trend of Denying Design Registrations Over GUIs Image from here Can a GUI be regarded as a Design? In what follows, Rahul Bajaj sets out the key arguments of the parties and the holding of the court, along with his analysis of the judgment.
May 25, 2022) Alcon sued Lens.com for federal and state falseadvertising and trademark claims. 1994), “before considering consumer survey evidence, a district court must, first, determine whether the designation of geographic origin is ‘geographically descriptive.’ The Lanham Act falseadvertising counterclaim was dismissed.
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).
LFI allegedly used the “concepts, designs and ideas” from GDI’s samples to launch a new line of products with a larger cosmetics company, Morphe. Lanham Act falseadvertising: Were the statements “commercial advertising or promotion” even though not in a conventional ad? Insider Inc.
“The test group was presented five pages from StockX’s website featuring the Authenticity Statements, and the control group was presented with similar webpages that featured versions of those statements that omitted references to ‘authentication’ or substituted them with references to ‘inspection.’”
Netaifm alleged that defendants engaged in anticompetitive market behavior when the Jain entities acquired majority shares of two local design firms, which connect manufacturers to growers, and alleged falseadvertising. Jain is Netafim’s largest competitor. Jain had approximately $25 million in Central Valley sales in 2016.
OSD Audio then sued Outlaw under §512(f), and Outlaw counterclaimed for falseadvertising and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, copyright infringement, and trade libel. Lanham Act: The user manual did not constitute “commercial advertising or promotion.” For the copyright claim, Outlaw didn’t show irreparable harm.
In fall 2023, Overjet launched its “Anatomical Structures Visualization Tool” for Overjet Caries Assist, which introduced the relevant coloring scheme and design. It also allegedly “selected the design and colors to help with brand identification; the purple, for example, complements Overjet’s purple brand color.” Overjet, Inc.
Falseadvertising claims as to “Made in USA”: First, J-B Weld argued that Illinois Tool lacked standing because it didn’t advertise its own products as being “Made in USA.” What if J-B Weld falselyadvertised that its bonding products cure cancer or stopped global warming? The evidence conflicts.”
Although expressing some skepticism, the court found that they stated a valid falseadvertising claim. Factors supporting a commercial speech characterization include “[l] the speech is an advertisement, [2] the speech refers to a particular product, and [3] the speaker has an economic motivation.” Those were all present.
PNC sued for counterfeiting, infringement, and falseadvertising/unfair competition under federal and Pennsylvania law. A consumer complaint cited by PNC might be relevant to falseadvertising, but didn’t obviously show trademark confusion: Venmo says they have lost connection with my bank – sounds like Venmo’s problem.
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