Remove False Advertising Remove Litigation Remove Trademark Law
article thumbnail

influencers aren't advertisers' agents, materiality can be common sense, & more in supplement case

43(B)log

In re: Elysium Health-ChromaDex Litigation, No. Thus, any false advertising 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.

article thumbnail

Google’s Search Disambiguation Doesn’t Create Initial Interest Confusion–Aliign v. lululemon

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

McNeil. * Three Keyword Advertising Decisions in a Week, and the Trademark Owners Lost Them All. * Competitor Gets Pyrrhic Victory in False Advertising Suit Over Search Ads–Harbor Breeze v. Reyes & Adler v. Newport Fishing. * IP/Internet/Antitrust Professor Amicus Brief in 1-800 Contacts v.

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

IPSC Breakout 3: Trademark and Unfair Competition

43(B)log

Mary Catherine Amerine, Reasonably Careless Consumers in False Advertising 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 false advertising.

article thumbnail

Imputing Bad Faith in Trademark Infringement Disputes: Analysing DHC Nova v. Novya Judgement

SpicyIP

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.

article thumbnail

Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute False Advertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet v. Troia

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

McNeil. * Three Keyword Advertising Decisions in a Week, and the Trademark Owners Lost Them All. * Competitor Gets Pyrrhic Victory in False Advertising Suit Over Search Ads–Harbor Breeze v. The post Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute False Advertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet Reyes & Adler v.

article thumbnail

Georgia Supreme Court Blesses Google’s Keyword Ad Sales–Edible IP v. Google

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

.” In other words, they sought to establish (using centuries-old chattel-based theft doctrines rather than trademark law) 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.

IP 141
article thumbnail

The SHOP SAFE Act Is a Terrible Bill That Will Eliminate Online Marketplaces

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

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.

Trademark 144