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
Dawgs’ (“Dawgs”) counterclaim for falseadvertising under the Lanham Act. In 2016, Dawgs added new asserted counterclaims against Crocs, including a claim for falseadvertising under the Lanham Act. Crocs largely prevailed in those actions. 1125(a)(1)(B) (Section 43 of the Lanham Act). See Zenith Elecs.
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.
3, 2021) Plaintiffs alleged falseadvertising 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Defendant’s argument confuses the question of whether a reasonable consumer would likely be misled by an allegedly falseadvertisement with the separate question—relevant where reliance is at issue—of whether an individual consumer was misled by the advertisement….
Painaway advertised its products as “Australia’s No. 1 Joint & Muscle Spray and Cream Topical Pain Relief Brand” on: (1) its Australian website; (2) social media; and (3) Ultimate Fighting Championship (“UFC”) athletes’ clothing in matches televised in the United States.
Princeton insured Wonderland from 2016-2018 (with a broad exclusion for defamation, invasion of privacy, and various forms of advertising injury in the second year called the Exhibitions and Related Marketing Exclusion), and agreed to defend the club but reserved the right to deny insurance coverage.
American Girl applied for trademarks on a space-themed doll named Luciana Vega, which it began marketing in 2018 as its “Girl of the Year” doll. Yes: They plausibly pled “a commercial interest in giving scientific presentations, appearing on scientific television shows, and participating in science-related events.”
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. The court was guided by Electra v. 3d 233 (2d Cir.
Premier sold Joint Juice for treating/preventing joint pain; a jury found it liable to a consumer class for falseadvertising under NY law; and the district court awarded statutory damages to the class, but cut them by over 90%. The court also rejected challenges to certain evidentiary rulings at trial.
211 (2020) Intro: The University of Michigan released a startling study (“the Michigan Study”) in October 2018 which unveiled that “manipulative and disruptive” advertisements are deceptively built into phone applications (“apps”) designed for children. Yet, multiple apps designed for children heavily employ host-selling.
Chesney also performed on the Lounge’s beachfront stage at a 2014 concert broadcast as “Kenny Chesney: Live at the Flora-Bama” on Country Music Television (CMT), a Viacom channel. The agreement granting CMT a license to broadcast that program does not mention Plaintiffs. New Life Art, Inc., 3d 1266 (11th Cir.
Defendants fundamentally argued that federal law dictated that “labels which indicate that products which only have been processed in the United States can be labeled as a United States product, regardless whether these labels are false or misleading.” She challenged both use of a “U.S.D.A. The court disagreed.
Relying extensively on the rationale of the Single Judge’s order, the Division Bench held that Section 31D specifically deals only with Radio and Television Broadcasting. On March 13, the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte interim injunction in Markets and Markets Research Pvt. Meticulous Market Research Pvt.
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