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
In re: Elysium Health-ChromaDex Litigation, No. Thus, any falseadvertising claim would lie against Albaum, not [directly] against ChromaDex. 17-cv-7394 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y. 11, 2022) This is the main liability opinion. Both parties get partial wins/losses on summary judgment. The report didn’t prove causation.
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. Reyes & Adler v. Newport Fishing. * IP/Internet/Antitrust Professor Amicus Brief in 1-800 Contacts v.
Mary Catherine Amerine, Reasonably Careless Consumers in FalseAdvertising and Trademark Consumers can devote much more (or less) time to a decision than seems rational for the amount of risk/benefit in their lives. Court expects consumers to be reasonably prudent in both TM and falseadvertising.
In their written statement, the Defendants claimed distinctions between the marks and denied any unlawful activities, asserting that their trademark application for ‘NOVYA’ covered a broader range of goods, and commercial activities had not yet commenced.
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. The post Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute FalseAdvertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet Reyes & Adler v.
.” In other words, they sought to establish (using centuries-old chattel-based theft doctrines rather than trademarklaw) that a trademark owner has the unrestricted right to shut down anyone using their trademarks, even if no consumers are harmed. to see if it could find some soft spot in Georgia state law.
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. Fourth, the law imposes a proactive screening obligation, something that Tiffany v. eBay rejected.
You can have a court declare your trademarks weak or invalid so they are less valuable than when you started. You can get less damages than the cost of litigation, so the whole effort is unprofitable. The court says this lawsuit qualified: “LVSA litigated this case in an unreasonable manner. How did that come about?
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. LoanStreet v.
More Posts About Keyword Advertising. Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute FalseAdvertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet Troia. * Trademark Owner F s Around With Keyword Ad Case & Finds Out–Las Vegas Skydiving v. Allied Modular Building Systems, Inc. 2022 WL 4596646 (C.D. July 24, 2022). The CourtListener page. LoanStreet v.
May 10, 2023) More Posts About Keyword Advertising * Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. Allied Modular * Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute FalseAdvertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet Troia * Trademark Owner F s Around With Keyword Ad Case & Finds Out–Las Vegas Skydiving v.
While this is a startling good defense ruling from a trademarklaw standpoint, I could see a state bar arguing that ads violate ethics rules if they produce hundreds of potentially misdirected prospective clients. May 18, 2023) More Posts About Keyword Advertising * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law 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. Reyes & Adler v. Newport Fishing. * IP/Internet/Antitrust Professor Amicus Brief in 1-800 Contacts v.
The litigants directly compete. Nurses who have used the plaintiff’s program in the past or who heard of it through word of mouth, for example, may search the trademarked name on Google and find the defendant’s website instead of the plaintiff’s website. Brown Engstrand * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law v.
Courts almost never found trademark infringement in those cases, but it was only in the last decade that we started to get opinions saying this bluntly and clearly. Warby Parker, part of 1-8oo Contacts’ irrepressible efforts to revive the litigation genre. LoanStreet v. Reyes & Adler v.
Brown Engstrand * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law v. Bye, Goff * Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. Allied Modular * Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute FalseAdvertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet LoanStreet v. Reyes & Adler v.
In that time, the parties have waged innumerable formal battles over seemingly everything available to parties in civil litigation: countless discovery disputes, motions for sanctions, and two rounds of summary judgment. Brown Engstrand * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law v. LoanStreet 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. Reyes & Adler v. Newport Fishing. * IP/Internet/Antitrust Professor Amicus Brief in 1-800 Contacts v.
Are the parties seriously going to litigate this to a trial? Brown Engstrand * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law v. Bye, Goff * Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. Allied Modular * Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute FalseAdvertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet
1-800 Contacts’ keyword ad litigation campaign went on hiatus during the pendency of the FTC enforcement. With that resolved, 1-800 Contacts reverted to its old litigation tricks–and is getting the same futile outcomes. This regressive and anti-consumer approach got zero traction with this judge. Reyes & Adler 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. Reyes & Adler v. Newport Fishing. * IP/Internet/Antitrust Professor Amicus Brief in 1-800 Contacts v.
Although “third parties have used Flora-Bama in the titles of third parties’ artistic works with Plaintiffs’ oral or written permission,” that doesn’t make this a title-v-title case: Basic trademarklaw demonstrates why. This justification is at least consistent with the core idea of trademarklaw.
For Google, the only dark cloud was the concurrence’s effort to hold that competitive keyword advertisers are categorically not making a trademark use in commerce, but keyword ad sellers are. Brown Engstrand * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law v. Appellate Empiricism. LoanStreet v.
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.
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. Tam and Brunetti, striking down various bars on registration. Then, in Lexmark v.
The litigants use the Internet, but who doesn’t, so normally the court would say this factor is irrelevant. 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.
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?
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