Remove Designs Remove False Advertising Remove Reporting
article thumbnail

game spat expands beyond false advertising to TM and (c)

43(B)log

Skillz sued its competitor Papaya, alleging false advertising under federal and state law. That is, false advertising 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.,

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

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

Noncommercial speakers can be liable for contributory false advertising

43(B)log

25, 2022) I know it probably seems sometimes like I approve of every expansive use of false advertising law, but sometimes even I find an aggressive position to go too far. The report concluded that the Italian formulation qualifies both as “GRAS” and as a “medical food” under US law, allegedly giving credence to these claims. [I

article thumbnail

antitrust claim against Suboxone, including false advertising, survives summary judgment

43(B)log

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 false advertising difficult.

article thumbnail

Lexmark allows direct and contributory false advertising claims against certifier

43(B)log

Plaintiffs allegd both direct and contributory false advertising, which requires (1) that the “third party in fact directly engaged in false advertising that injured the plaintiff” and (2) “that the defendant contributed to that conduct either by knowingly inducing, or causing the conduct, or by materially participating in it.”

article thumbnail

two opinions send "false advertising of certification mark" claim to jury

43(B)log

pictures of not-good plywood from case Plaintiffs alleged both direct and contributory false advertising. Defendants challenged whether plaintiffs identified any false or misleading statements by defendants. In Baldino’s Lock & Key Serv., Google, Inc., App’x 81 (4th Cir.