Remove False Advertising Remove Litigation 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

Press release touting preliminary injunction can found false advertising counterclaims

43(B)log

ZimVie intervened and counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of invalidity, cancellation fo the color marks registration, declaratory judgment of noninfringement, false advertising under the Lanham Act and California law, and tortious interference. ZimVie responded that the commercial speech exception applied.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

accusing someone of patent infringement can be actionable disparagement if you know the patent's invalid

43(B)log

Before it prevailed in the underlying patent litigation, Cap Export alleged that defendants disparaged Cap Export and its products as an infringer/infringing. The underlying patent litigation allegedly fraudulently induced Cap Export to enter into a $1.1 and to Amazon. Given the alleged bad faith, this sufficed.

article thumbnail

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

43(B)log

In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Naloxone) Antitrust Litig., That difficulty is not really unique, but the court is forced to make distinctions because of the unwarranted exclusion of many false advertising claims from antitrust consideration.) 3d -, MDL NO. 2445 13-MD-2445, CIV. 16-5073, 2022 WL 3588024 (E.D.

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. weren’t the Defendants’ certifications at all.…

article thumbnail

false advertising claim fails, in part because of stringent antitrust rules

43(B)log

In re EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales Practices & Antitrust Litig., 17, 2020) A lot of stuff here; I will ignore the non-false advertising related aspects of this mostly antitrust case. Sanofi argued that none of its advertisements or promotional materials made any of these assertions.