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
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.,
ZimVie intervened and counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of invalidity, cancellation fo the color marks registration, declaratory judgment of noninfringement, falseadvertising under the Lanham Act and California law, and tortious interference. ZimVie responded that the commercial speech exception applied.
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.
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 falseadvertising claims from antitrust consideration.) 3d -, MDL NO. 2445 13-MD-2445, CIV. 16-5073, 2022 WL 3588024 (E.D.
Plaintiffs allegd both direct and contributory falseadvertising, which requires (1) that the “third party in fact directly engaged in falseadvertising 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.”
pictures of not-good plywood from case Plaintiffs alleged both direct and contributory falseadvertising. 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.…
In re EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales Practices & Antitrust Litig., 17, 2020) A lot of stuff here; I will ignore the non-falseadvertising related aspects of this mostly antitrust case. Sanofi argued that none of its advertisements or promotional materials made any of these assertions.
The parties had other disputes, including accusing each other of posting false reviews of the other. LJD therefore reduced the amount of business it conducted with Creager until it could determine how the litigation between Creager and IDT was resolved. There’s more, including public disputes on Craigslist.
30, 2022) Pegasystems alleged that defendants, which compete with it in the business process management (BPM) software field, engaged in falseadvertising and commercial disparagement in an online report that portrayed Pegasystems unfavorably. Defendant BPM.com reported on the BPM industry. Previous discussion.)
In re: Elysium Health-ChromaDex Litigation, No. Elysium argued that the website as a whole was a referral website for Tru Niagen, which advertised Tru Niagen at the top of every page. Thus, any falseadvertising claim would lie against Albaum, not [directly] against ChromaDex. 17-cv-7394 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y.
Our last report on this case detailed the Second Amended Complaint that Columbia University ("Columbia") filed against the Encyclopaedia Iranica Foundation ("EIF") in early 2021. March 2, 2022, EIF filed an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint.
In re KIND LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litig., 24, 2021) Plaintiffs sought class certification of their falseadvertising claims based on the claims that KIND falselyadvertised “All Natural / Non-GMO,” “Non-GMO,” and “No Genetically Engineered Ingredients”; KIND sought to exclude expert reports.
May 25, 2022) Alcon sued Lens.com for federal and state falseadvertising and trademark claims. Alcon also allegedly sells a significant number of lenses overseas that are not FDA-compliant, rendering its product packaging for such lenses false and misleading to consumers, including Lens.com. Alcon Vision, LLC v. Lens.com, Inc.,
In other timeshare exit cases, including cases against these defendants, the plaintiffs presented evidence of materiality, including an expert report. Only one found defendants through the website on which they hosted the allegedly false and misleading advertisements. Here, those factors weighed in favor of such recovery.
For more on this, see my expert report in the Larsen v. McNeil. * Three Keyword Advertising Decisions in a Week, and the Trademark Owners Lost Them All. * Competitor Gets Pyrrhic Victory in FalseAdvertising Suit Over Search Ads–Harbor Breeze v. Thus, Google’s prompt dispels consumer confusion, not exacerbates it.
In Re Ethereummax Investor Litig., I’ll focus, as usual, on the falseadvertising bits and ignore the securities law parts. Given the issue of whether the Tokens are a “security” is a genuinely unanswered legal question, it would be unfair (and contrary to Rule 8) to prohibit alternative pleading at this stage of the litigation.”
I’m only going to discuss the falseadvertising aspects. There is an ongoing, separate litigation about ownership of the relevant patent; plaintiffs alleged that the two inventors assigned the patent to plaintiff Orthex.
That PG&E employee asserted his Fifth Amendment rights in this litigation and refused to be deposed, which does raise some eyebrows. 3) Reliaguard allegedly provided PG&E a doctored test reportfalsely suggesting that Eco’s ECC-2 cutout cover was not flame resistant.
The University issued a report concluding two of the five BRBs did not satisfy American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) 341-10 requirements. The report stated, “Further development is required for improving these two BRB types.” Plaintiffs also publicized the resulting lawsuit among customers, which triggered counterclaims.
They alleged violation of California’s FAL and UCL, falseadvertising under the Lanham Act, trade libel, and negligence. Anyway, Mosafer pled that various news sources, including the New York Times and the Associated Press, reported about Broidy’s alleged unregistered foreign lobbying efforts in March and April 2018.
Given the risks of litigation—including the nontrivial risk of losing at trial, as similar claims had done elsewhere (with the competing product Prevagen, for example, the jury was hung and the court decertified the class)—the magistrate recommended finding that settlement was fair, despite some objections, including from Truth in Advertising, Inc.
at 2, The article has been described as “groundbreaking,” with “widespread influence” on nationwide litigation in which plaintiffs allege that exposure to cosmetic talcum powder caused their mesothelioma. She allegedly “made a career” as a paid expert testifying on behalf of plaintiffs in asbestos litigation over the course of twenty years.
Plaintiffs sued for falseadvertising and false endorsement under the Lanham Act, violation of their right to publicity, deceptive trade practices under New York GBL Section 349, and defamation. 2021), which considered all these claims except for falseadvertising. And their expert report was not good.
It alleged that the Philips defendants, who make such devices, engaged in falseadvertising about one of SoClean’s devices in order to deflect blame for the Philips devices’ design defects. Commercial advertising or promotion: A separate problem. In re SoClean, Inc., Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liab. 22-542 (W.D.
In re Natera Prenatal Testing Litig., In another falseadvertising case challenging the undisclosed presence of child and slave labor in the supply chain, the Ninth Circuit rejected the existence of any duty to disclose because “the labor practices in question. 22-cv-00985-JST, 2023 WL 3370737, -- F.
Compared to the “rigorous” approval process for prescription-drug labels, the TTB process “hinges on self reporting” and reflects only the representations made to it by the distributor, not an endorsement of those claims. Thus, “a geographic reference on a wine label is understood to be an assertion about the origin of the product.”
In re Kind LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litig., Nor did plaintiffs’ survey report provide a way to define a reasonable consumer’s understanding of “All Natural,” because the court excluded it. 2022 WL 4125065, 15-MD-2645 (NRB), 15-MC-2645 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y. Previously, the court allowed NY, Florida, and California classes to proceed.
It’s a standard litigation dilemma: do you advance every possible claim that is remotely possible, or do you focus the claims on just the strongest ones so you don’t dilute or distract from those with tenuous claims? As it turns out, the court categorically sidesteps 230, so Snapchat ends up litigating each claim anyway.
Those requirements will impose huge compliance costs, but those investments won’t prevent online marketplaces from being dragged into extraordinarily expensive and high-stakes litigation over eligibility for this defense. Also, product shots have been a constant source of copyright litigation. eBay rejected.
In 2020, the plaintiff learned that “Defendant was using Plaintiff’s Marks in online tamale advertisements and in Google AdWords, which placed Defendant’s products above Plaintiff’s products in search results for the phrase ‘Texas Tamale.'” ” That prompted this litigation. ” Uh oh. WorkshopX Inc.
Warby Parker, part of 1-8oo Contacts’ irrepressible efforts to revive the litigation genre. The Second Circuit says, unambiguously, that “the mere act of purchasing a search engine keyword that is a competitor’s trademark does not alone, in the context of keyword search advertising, constitute trademark infringement.”
The decisions in the first category, i.e., Top 10 IP Cases/Judgements (Topicality/Impact) reflect those that we thought were important from a topical point of view and were covered by the media in some way owing to the importance of parties litigating or the issue being considered or for impact on industry and innovation/creativity ecosystem etc.
Comment: This is an interesting question given that TM/advertising people tend to define goodwill differently than general business valuation people, especially in the TM/falseadvertising context. Does its awareness of the stay mean that its falseadvertising violates the automatic stay? In re Alert Hldgs.,
[Gotta say, if we had a working FTC, this would be the kind of thing that the FTC considers deceptive, though it might well leave the parties to private remedies given their incentives to litigate and the lack of direct sales from the website.] It also sued Papaya for falseadvertising about lack of bots.
In re Theos Dark Chocolate Litigation, 2024 WL 4336631, No. This was not a claim of failure to warn under Proposition 65, but an independent falseadvertising claim. 23-cv-02739-HSG, F.Supp.3d Nor did a consent judgment entered into under Californias Proposition 65 with several chocolate manufacturers bar the claims.
For instance, during the Trump presidency, then-California Attorney General Xavier Becerra sued the federal government more than 110 times, spending tens of millions of dollars on litigation on a wide variety of issues spanning immigration, voting rights and climate change, among others. Mexico border. Takeaway No. Takeaway No.
Malwarebytes, which allowed a falseadvertising claim to proceed based on one software provider’s use of the terms “malicious” and “threat” to describe its alleged competitor’s software, despite a dissent raising free speech arguments. Then I’ll talk about the 9 th Circuit case Enigma Software 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