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. ” Dawgs appealed. See Zenith Elecs. Exzec, Inc. ,
Skillz sued its competitor Papaya, alleging falseadvertising under federal and state law. Papaya counterclaimed for the same causes of action and added trademark and copyright infringement as well as defamation and civil conspiracy claims.
Among these ads and messages, some may be useful in building the public’s confidence and marketing effective products to consumers, but some may mislead and deceive desperate consumers into buying treatments and products without any scientific support.
.” I’ll focus on the false designation of origin claim regarding Troia’s keyword ads. Troia claimed that he did not use the LoanStreet trademark in commerce. Just referencing a trademark on the Internet does not support a trademark claim, full stop. The court displays some of the ads: Use in Commerce.
Rebecca Tushnet and I are pleased to announce the sixth edition of our casebook, Advertising & Marketing Law: Cases & Materials. Chapter 2: What is an Advertisement? Chapter 3: FalseAdvertising Overview. Chapter 9: FalseAdvertising Practice and Remedies. Price: $12. Chapter 4: Deception.
17, 2023) Another entry in the “courts treat Lanham Act falseadvertising very differently than Lanham Act trademark infringement, despite identical damages provisions” line. CareDx sued Natera for falseadvertising. Nor did significant sales growth linked to the marketing campaign at issue. Natera, Inc.,
We usually get ours at the local farmers market.] In an April 2023 summary judgment ruling , the plaintiff established that it “possesses the legally protectable, incontestable trademarks TEXAS TAMALE and TEXAS TAMALE COMPANY.” They can keep their logo trademark). ” Say what? ” Uh oh. ” UGH.
Leonel Lops claims a trademark in the term “Confidence Empire” for shoes. He sued YouTube for allegedly infringing his trademark and sought “$1 billion in damages, $2 million in costs, at least $500 million in punitive damages, and temporary and permanent injunctive relief.” ” Cites to Yout v.
27, 2021) Ideavillage sued CCB for trademark infringement and false designation of origin related to Ideavillage’s “Copper Fit” line of copper-infused compression garments. Here, the court granted leave to amend to add a falseadvertising claim. Copper Compression Brands LLC, 2021 WL 5013799, No. 4604 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.
Boston Carriage’s principals voluntarily shared their business knowledge with Boston Suburban, including Boston Carriage’s business and marketing strategies and its online presence.” It also allegedly resumed promoting and advertising the domain name “logan-car-service.com” and re-routing visitors to its own website.
Certified alleged Lanham Act falseadvertising based on allegations that the Clorox defendants and Avicenna engaged in a scheme to falselyadvertise the source of chicken collagen used in dietary supplements sold to retail consumers.
The Trademark and Unfair Competition Scholarship Roundtable co-hosted by Harvard, NYU, and the University of Pennsylvania will take place this year at Harvard. We invite submissions from academics working on any aspect of trademark, falseadvertising, marketing, right of publicity, or related areas of the law.
I won’t say much about that, though I do have a big question, but there are also falseadvertising aspects of the case. The parties compete in the market for adjustable air mattresses and related products. Plaintiffs’ registered trademarks include “SLEEP NUMBER”, “WHAT’S YOUR SLEEP NUMBER”, “SELECT COMFORT”, and “COMFORTAIRE.”
In January 2022, StockX announced its plans to launch The Vault, which uses non-fungible tokens (NFTs) to allow buyers to track ownership of physical products resold on its e-market and warrant their authenticity, including Nike shoes. Nike, Inc. StockX LLC, 1:22-cv-00983-VEC. StockX LLC, 1:22-cv-00983-VEC.
25 2023) Previous district court opinion allowing Lanham Act falseadvertising claims to proceed against Microsoft; applying the Article III analysis that doesn’t (yet?) get applied to trademark claims, the court of appeals concludes there’s no standing and thus no jurisdiction over the appeal. note: Like trademark claims do?]
But how much control do brands like Chanel have over merchants who resell name-brand items in the secondary market? The answer, according to a federal jury in the Southern District of New York, is “Quite a bit.”
I’ve often wondered about the conversations that take place between trademark owner and counsel before filing a keyword advertising lawsuit. You can have a court declare your trademarks weak or invalid so they are less valuable than when you started. More Posts About Keyword Advertising. * How did that come about?
Unsurprisingly, the trademark claims survive a motion to dismiss, but associated falseadvertising claims don’t. VFB owns several trademark registrations including “Vampire,” specifically for wine and pre-mixed alcoholic beverages other than beer, and “Vampyre,” specifically for spirits.
The first pegfilgrastim biosimilar hit the market in November 2018, and would ultimately be followed by five others, including Sandoz’s Ziextenzo in November 2019. These ads were based on an obseivational study Amgen conducted itself, in an effort to remain competitive with the emerging biosimilar market. Sandoz Inc.
7, 2022) The court upheld a contempt finding based on an underlying falseadvertising claim. The underlying permanent injunction barred defendants from suggesting in promotional materials that their probiotic contained the same formulation as one marketed by De Simone. and many markets globally.” “So
1, 2021) Entrepreneur, a frequent trademark claimant, sought to amend its complaint and add new parties to the TM claims here. Roach, meanwhile, makes frequent use of the phrase “The Unstoppable Entrepreneur” and applied to register the phrase for “Business consultancy; Business marketing consulting services.”
This is a case involving a trademark owner and a competitive keyword advertiser. The trademark owner memorably (and ridiculously) characterized the rival as engaging in “keyword conquesting,” a term I encourage you never to use. The court already sent that trademark claim to the jury ( my blog post on that ruling ).
LVSA sued Groupon for trademark infringement. Melwani sued Amazon for trademark infringement, dilution, and more. With respect to the trademark claim, the court says the Ninth Circuit’s Multi-Time Machine v. Google. * Competitive Keyword Advertising Still Isn’t Trademark Infringement, Unless….
The Trademark and Unfair Competition Scholarship Roundtable co-hosted by Harvard, NYU, and the University of Pennsylvania will take place this year at Harvard. We invite submissions from academics working on any aspect of trademark, falseadvertising, marketing, right of publicity, or related areas of the law.
15, 2023) Simpson sued its competitor MiTek for using Simpson part numbers for structural connectors/fasteners for use in the construction industry in its catalogs/other promotional material; the court here, after a nonjury trial before the magistrate judge, rather comprehensively rejects its falseadvertising, trademark, and copyright claims. (It
Trademark and Unfair Competition Scholarship Roundtable 2023 The Trademark and Unfair Competition Scholarship Roundtable co-hosted by Harvard, NYU, and the University of Pennsylvania will take place in person hosted this year at NYU. The Roundtable will cover the travel and lodging expenses for invited authors.
SI03 originally sued for falseadvertising and related claims, and Musclegen counterclaimed similarly. SI03 alleged that Musclegen markets its Genepro protein powder product by falsely claiming it contains 30 grams of protein in a roughly 11.15 Musclegen Research, Inc., 2021 WL 765293, No. 1:16-CV-274 RLW (E.D.
Toyota USA sued Allen for grey marketing in violation of the Lanham Act and related claims, asserting that material differences included the existence of a manufacturer-backed warranty, the shipping and packaging of the parts, and the appearance and condition of the parts. 14, 2023) This is the trademark side of the case.
The parties compete in the market for audio products and sell competing models of multichannel amplifiers on different platforms, including Amazon. The false statement at issue is OSD’s claim that one of its products, an amplifier, has a signal-to-noise ratio of 115 decibels.
Whatever legal ambiguity might have existed then has been decisively resolved, at least with respect to competitive keyword ads that don’t use the trademark in the ad copy. 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.
“But how can the Court permanently enjoin the sales of three specific products, when there is only an allegation or evidence supporting at most one product being falselyadvertised? Plaintiff was required to plead falseadvertising with specificity, then prove it.” It only did so with evidence as to B07ZH6PVD4.
Edible Arrangements objected to Google selling its trademark to trigger keyword ads. They filed a trademark lawsuit in 2018 but abandoned the suit when it got sent to arbitration. The court says that trademark law: permits the use of trade names as long as referencing other brand names does not confuse consumers and is not deceptive.
The Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy will host this year’s Trademark and Unfair Competition Scholarship Roundtable. The Roundtable is designed to be a forum for the discussion of current trademark and right of publicity scholarship, covering a range of methodologies, topics, and perspectives.
To many trademark owners, it’s a simple decision to sue when the advertiser includes the trademark in the ad copy. So, what exactly is the trademark owner fighting for here? This is a bad ad buy by Allied, AND it’s a bad trademark enforcement decision by Porta-Fab. So why did I say the case was stupid?
Kudos to Nicolet Law for surviving the motion to dismiss, but I’m wondering if it will ultimately regret filing this lawsuit–either because its trademark gets busted or because it made a federal case out of nothing. For more background on competitive keyword advertising by lawyers, see this article. LoanStreet v.
.” 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.” I even agree with the latter point!)
Instead of protecting consumers, this bill gives trademark owners absolute control over online marketplaces by overturning Tiffany v. Because the bill makes it impossible for online marketplaces to avoid contributory trademark liability, this bill will drive most or all online marketplaces out of the industry.
Maybe companies can resurrect noncompetes by prohibiting uses of their trademarks in former employees’ resumes! Maybe companies can resurrect noncompetes by prohibiting uses of their trademarks in former employees’ resumes! This is a joke, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen.)
17 years later, I’m still blogging their ignoble trademark lawsuits. Some “highlights” of 1-800 Contacts’ trademark jurisprudence over the years: 1-800 Contacts v. Unfortunately, that’s standard operating procedure in trademark cases. More Posts About Keyword Advertising. WhenU (2d Cir.
Ah, how I wish courts would apply the same scrutiny to trademark harm stories. The result is that FedEx routes are, as a practical matter, intangible commodities traded on a competitive market and subject to price fluctuation based on the actual or perceived value of each individual route. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.
Safelite allegedly falselyadvertised that (1) “if damage spreads beyond the size of a dollar bill, a replacement will be necessary”; (2) “when a chip is smaller than a dollar bill, it can usually be repaired without replacing the windshield.” can be safe and is viable.” Were plaintiffs’ injuries proximately caused by Safelite?
Both sides now claim the other is liable for falseadvertising, among other claims.” Defendants also allegedly infringed RCI’s trademarks by using photographs of Roberto Coin jewelry and RCI’s logo in Kings Stone’s advertising after RCI terminated the relationship. Instagram ultimately removed the posts.
The plaintiff has a trademark registration for the “Nursing CE Central” mark for providing continuing education for nurses. A rival, Colibri, displayed in the trademark in its Google keyword ads, but it claims it has stopped doing so after the lawsuit was filed. ” Marketing channel. ” Relatedness of goods.
July 31, 2024) The trademark owner Alsa sells chrome paint. Walmart doesn’t carry the trademark owners’ items. In searches for the trademarks in Walmart’s internal search engine, Walmart only shows unrelated items–not items from the trademark owner or any competitors. Walmart Inc. Cites to Sen 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