Remove Fair Use Remove False Advertising Remove Social Media Remove Trademark Law
article thumbnail

Trademark law and LinkedIn resumes: watch out?

43(B)log

Maybe companies can resurrect noncompetes by prohibiting uses of their trademarks in former employees’ resumes! Portkey sued for unfair competition/reverse passing off, false advertising, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, as well as related state-law claims. Venkateswaran, 2024 WL 3487735, No.

article thumbnail

Second Circuit signals some minimal flexibility on Polaroid analysis in another strip club false endorsement case

43(B)log

May 19, 2023) Whereas the timeshare false advertising cases might be making law largely applicable to other timeshare cases, what’s going on in the strip club advertising cases might have somewhat broader implications. The district court concluded that plaintiffs’ false endorsement claims were foreclosed by Electra v.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Artistic Expression or Crass Commercialism? Drawing the lines in Right of Publicity, Lanham Act, and Commercial Speech Cases

43(B)log

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.

article thumbnail

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2023

SpicyIP

Ujoy Technology and Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha vs Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd [Delhi High Court] This year the concept of transborder reputation in trademark law saw two important interpretations from the Delhi High Court. Bolt Technology v. First, in Toyota v. d) Other IP Developments 1. Acko General Insurance.

IP 112
article thumbnail

USC IP year in review, TM/ROP

43(B)log

For about a decade, courts had realized that IIC had gone way too far, and had expanded liability in ways that didn’t protect consumers and facilitated anticompetitive claims about false advertising. It then sued the City for this Instagram post, alleging that it would cause confusion about affiliation or sponsorship.

IP 94