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
” I’ll focus on the falsedesignation of origin claim regarding Troia’s keyword ads. Troia claimed that he did not use the LoanStreet trademark in commerce. .” The post Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute FalseAdvertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet Case Citation : LoanStreet, Inc.
T]he URL merely shows how the website’s data is organized and/or the search term entered by the consumer, and … this does not violate trademarklaw.” Falsedesignation of origin/falseadvertising: Lasoff v. And it dismissed falseadvertising claims as “duplicative of his infringement claim.”
The court dismissed most of Quincy’s claims (counterfeiting, trademark infringement, and falsedesignation of origin) except for falseadvertising—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 trademarklaw.
Falseadvertising: Spiralverse allegedly falselyadvertised its version of the Piano Book on Amazon as “new,” despite the rebinding, residue, and front labels. Was this literally false? Copyright infringement: Rebinding doesn’t create a derivative work. But ruling on that was premature before discovery.
ccBill held that “intellectual property” meant only “federal intellectual property” because otherwise this exception would expose Internet services to heterogeneous state laws that they couldn’t manage. In 2007, the Ninth Circuit in Perfect 10 v.
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. Instead of protecting consumers, this bill gives trademark owners absolute control over online marketplaces by overturning Tiffany v.
Thus, any falseadvertising claim would lie against Albaum, not [directly] against ChromaDex. What about statements about how a product was “designed”? Elysium said that its proprietary formulation of two ingredients was “designed” to work together synergistically.
With respect to the trademark claim, the court says the Ninth Circuit’s Multi-Time Machine v. Amazon case is “directly on point and forecloses Plaintiff’s ability to bring this claim as a matter of law.” ” The falsedesignation of origin claim is similarly governed by the Ninth Circuit’s Lasoff v.
It bids on the Adler trademarks for “click-to-call” keyword ads. The ads “are designed to display generic terms that consumers might associate with any personal injury firm.” ” Adler sued for trademark and related claims. The district court dismissed Adler’s complaint. –Adler v.
“A reasonable consumer would understand that ‘vanilla’ is merely a flavor designator, not an ingredient claim.” Comment: trademarklaw bounces rather casually between normative and empirical understandings of the reasonable consumer. These cases provide great evidence that falseadvertisinglaw does so as well.]
The Court noted that the Patents Act is specifically designed to deal with matters concerning allegations of unreasonable conditions in licence agreements, abuse of one’s status as a patentee, the necessary inquiry into these allegations, and eventually the relief that can be granted. Controller of Patents & Designs Patent Office Mumbai.
” Furthermore, in a mild surprise, the court blesses Google’s “ad” label: “the bolded “Ad” designation next to each of ALG’s advertisements sufficiently distinguishes ALG’s advertisements from the search’s organic results.” Appellate Empiricism. This panel went ham as a empirical fact-finder.
Or, at the most, confuse Defendant’s app with Plaintiffs’ This situation is different from the websites in Network Automation and Playboy, which were clearly distinguished with ad designations. The search results here do not have those same disclaimers. The situation is even more precarious in the Google Playstore.
Panel #2, TM, moderated by Vice Dean Felix Wu Jack Daniels says that use as a trademark is special: like copyright’s bête noire, confusion caused by trademark use is the central concern of trademarklaw. Kagan describes it as “designation of source.” Tam and Brunetti, striking down various bars on registration.
at 997-98, Rogers limited the application of the Lanham Act’s prohibition on falseadvertising “to apply to artistic works only where the public interest in avoiding consumer confusion outweighs the public interest in free expression. ” Id. In VIP Products v. Jack Daniels Products , 953 F.3d 3d 1170 , 1172 (9 th Cir.
Rierson, TrademarkLaw and the Creep of Legal Formalism Various rules w/in TM law have been codified that we seem to be treating more as formalistic labels or bright line rules when a more practical approach is preferable in TM context instead of leaning on labels. How do they make that happen? Gender and class?
However, it provides both good challenges and opportunities under trademarklaw. The blog covers how trademarks evolve in the era of social media and influencer marketing, analyzing legal uncertainties, protection mechanisms, and best practices for commercial usage. Therefore, a brand can be registered in the U.S.
But even if the n-word isn’t unregistrable because it’s scandalous or disparaging, it may still be unregistrable because it already has so much expressive meaning that it’s simply incapable of adding a trademark function. failure to function can be significant in ordinary cases with uncontroversial subject matter.
Changes in TrademarkLaw and Evidentiary Rules Introduction: Jake Linford Before courts admitted surveys routinely, they were concerned about hearsay. These surveys are now designed to suppress that uncertainty and not let it appear in the courtroom b/c we just want numbers. It doesn’t work so well for advertising!
I’m going to talk briefly about last term’s Jack Daniels case—a trademark infringement and dilution case—as well as Elster, argued last week, in which the Justices appeared inclined to reject a First Amendment challenge to the refusal to register the claimed mark “TRUMP TOO SMALL” for t-shirts. Trademark: In Jack Daniel’s v.
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