Remove False Advertising Remove Marketing Remove Television
article thumbnail

False Patent Marking as False Advertising: Overcoming Dastar

Patently-O

Dawgs’ (“Dawgs”) counterclaim for false advertising under the Lanham Act. In 2016, Dawgs added new asserted counterclaims against Crocs, including a claim for false advertising under the Lanham Act. Crocs largely prevailed in those actions. 1125(a)(1)(B) (Section 43 of the Lanham Act). See Zenith Elecs.

article thumbnail

California Supreme Court reaffirms strict liability for false advertising in Serova

43(B)log

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.’” Not all marketing of artistic works is noncommercial speech. There was also no copyright preemption. 3d 1146 (9th Cir.

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

continued desire to purchase TVs suffices for California standing

43(B)log

3, 2021) Plaintiffs alleged false advertising of TTE’s TVs in violation of California and New Jersey law; the court granted the motion to dismiss but allowed leave to amend as to injunctive relief claims. The TVs weren’t allegedly worthless if truthfully advertised. Was this plausible?

article thumbnail

Third Circuit Says Section 230 Doesn’t Apply to Publicity Rights Claims–Hepp v. Facebook

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Hepp is a television newscaster. ” With respect to policy, the majority goes property-absolutist: “Because state property rights can facilitate market exchange, interpreting the § 230(e)(2) limitation to include state intellectual property laws tracks Congress’s pro-free-market goal.” About the Case.

article thumbnail

Rogers v Grimaldi doesn't apply to alcohol, but Peaky Blinders still can't get injunction

43(B)log

It submitted 14 social media posts “which it contends shows consumers and retailers attributed a particular source to Defendants’ liquor and Plaintiff’s television show.” The managing director declared “[a]t the time that I chose the name Peaky Blinder, I had never heard of [Plaintiff’s] Peaky Blinders television program.

article thumbnail

Atari’s Copyright Claim Against State Farm Survives Challenge

Copyright Lately

The company claimed the ad’s use of the Crystal Castles cabinet was de minimis —too fleeting and trivial to constitute infringement—and that it was protected under the fair use doctrine, asserting that the commercial had no conceivable impact on the market for Atari’s game. Conversely, in Ringgold v.

Fair Use 113
article thumbnail

gold buyer's "up to 90%" payment claims were plausibly misleading

43(B)log

The parties compete in the market for buying gold from ordinary people. In 2010, the Today Show—a morning television show aired on the NBC network—aired a segment in which it mailed a single item of gold to ten different mail-in precious metals dealers and compared the prices offered.