False Advertising Marketing Settlement 
43(B)log
DECEMBER 22, 2023
20, 2023) The court denies settlement approval in this case alleging that Macy’s misrepresented the thread count in some of the sheets it sold, because it doesn’t like the cy pres part of the remedy. The global class action settlement created a $10.5 million common fund, and the parties jointly moved the court to approve.
Indiana Intellectual Property Law
MAY 31, 2024
Eli Lilly and Company has reached a settlement with Totality Medispa , a South Carolina -based medical spa, after filing lawsuits in late 2023. Any product labeled as “tirzepatide” that is not sold by Lilly is not FDA-approved and could be dangerous.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
SEPTEMBER 9, 2022
So by the time the court says “the parties are vying for users in the same ‘market,'” you know that the judge has lost the thread. How can Troia vie for a “market” when the court already said he “is not offering a good or service”??? .” So why wasn’t that dispositive?
43(B)log
AUGUST 22, 2022
18, 2022) Not bound by Article III, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling despite the parties’ settlement. The statements were “commercial advertising meant to sell a product, and generally there ‘can be no constitutional objection to the suppression of commercial messages that do not accurately inform the public.’”
43(B)log
JANUARY 19, 2022
14, 2022) Once in a blue moon, a false advertising-based antitrust claim survives a motion to dismiss in a circuit that imposes a list of excessive requirements on such claims. Consumers and advertisers adequately alleged that Facebook has monopoly power in social network/social media (consumers) and social advertising markets.
43(B)log
AUGUST 27, 2021
After a settlement with one defendant, the two remaining defendants “are the sole licensors of the PS 1-09 stamp to 36 Brazilian plywood mills that export structural plywood to the United States.” As for the contributory false advertising claim, it too was well pled. Plaintiffs brought negligence and Lanham Act claims.
IP Watchdog
JULY 25, 2023
On Friday, July 21, an Illinois district court ruled that a Pakistani employee of a medical device distribution company infringed on Ethicon’s trademark when he bought, marketed and sold counterfeit Ethicon devices. Ethicon is a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson and won an $18 million default judgment.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
59 
Let's personalize your content