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
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?
.” In other words, they sought to establish (using centuries-old chattel-based theft doctrines rather than trademarklaw) 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.
Maybe companies can resurrect noncompetes by prohibiting uses of their trademarks in former employees’ resumes! Portkey sued for unfair competition/reverse passing off, falseadvertising, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, as well as related state-law claims. Venkateswaran, 2024 WL 3487735, No.
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.” Brown Engstrand * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law 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!) Facebook , Nos.
May 10, 2023) More Posts About Keyword Advertising * Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. Allied Modular * Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute FalseAdvertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet Troia * Trademark Owner F s Around With Keyword Ad Case & Finds Out–Las Vegas Skydiving v.
This is a bad ad buy by Allied, AND it’s a bad trademark enforcement decision by Porta-Fab. As I teach my students, Porta-Fab should have spent its enforcement budget on more marketing instead of more lawyers, which almost certainly would produce a higher ROI than this lawsuit did. More Posts About Keyword Advertising.
of exposed consumers experienced actual confusion: This tiny percentage cannot reasonably be said to constitute an “appreciable” or “significant” number of consumers confused by Defendants’ advertising strategy. Nor can it be said to show that Defendants’ marketing strategy made confusion likely. LoanStreet v. Reyes & Adler v.
Nursing CE Central” is a descriptive mark with “a weak secondary meaning… the plaintiff makes no meaningful showing that the public, or even those in the market in which it competes, readily recognizes its name.” ” Marketing channel. Brown Engstrand * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law v.
McNeil. * Three Keyword Advertising Decisions in a Week, and the Trademark Owners Lost Them All. * Competitor Gets Pyrrhic Victory in FalseAdvertising Suit Over Search Ads–Harbor Breeze v. The post Competitive Keyword Advertising Claim Fails–Reflex Media v. Reyes & Adler v.
The court says “Bedrock Quartz” is descriptive, and the plaintiff provided no evidence of consumer recognition, though it has spent $4M on marketing over the past 20 years. Brown Engstrand * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law v. Mark Strength. Consumer Care. LoanStreet v. Reyes & Adler v.
McNeil. * Three Keyword Advertising Decisions in a Week, and the Trademark Owners Lost Them All. * Competitor Gets Pyrrhic Victory in FalseAdvertising Suit Over Search Ads–Harbor Breeze v. The post Trademark Owner F s Around With Keyword Ad Case & Finds Out–Las Vegas Skydiving v. Reyes & Adler v.
The manufacturer can sue the seller for copying its shots; the manufacturer can sue for falseadvertising if non-official shots aren’t “accurate,” and freelancers love to sue over product shots they took and ones they think are too similar to the ones they took.]. Trademark owners will weaponize that ambiguity.
It’s a defect of the common law tradition; bad doctrinal memes rarely die, and even those fading away are just one ill-advised case from being resurrected. What are “marketing rights”??? More Posts About Keyword Advertising. McNeil appeared first on Technology & MarketingLaw Blog.
Brown Engstrand * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law v. Bye, Goff * Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. Allied Modular * Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute FalseAdvertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet LoanStreet v. Reyes & Adler v.
However, Von Berg allegedly sold Nutra-Luxe to Lash HoldCo, LLC without notice or compensation to Hawrych without paying him, at which point Hawrych revoked permissions and licenses that he had granted Defendants for the use of his name, image, and trademark. Thus, the falseadvertising claim would be dismissed.
Was this commercial advertising or promotion? Elysium argued that Right of Assembly was “a marketing website for Tru Niagen for which ChromaDex pays commissions to Shelly Albaum for Tru Niagen customers referred through the website.” Thus, any falseadvertising claim would lie against Albaum, not [directly] against ChromaDex.
McNeil. * Three Keyword Advertising Decisions in a Week, and the Trademark Owners Lost Them All. * Competitor Gets Pyrrhic Victory in FalseAdvertising Suit Over Search Ads–Harbor Breeze v. The post Court Dismisses Trademark Claims Over Internal Search Results–Las Vegas Skydiving v. Reyes & Adler v.
That’s certainly true for high-profile and well-advertised consumer items like fast food chains, mass-market phones, and major car labels, but is it true in this particular niche? Brown Engstrand * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law v. LoanStreet v. Reyes & Adler v.
Brown Engstrand * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law v. Bye, Goff * Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. Allied Modular * Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute FalseAdvertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet LoanStreet v. Reyes & Adler v.
McNeil. * Three Keyword Advertising Decisions in a Week, and the Trademark Owners Lost Them All. * Competitor Gets Pyrrhic Victory in FalseAdvertising Suit Over Search Ads–Harbor Breeze v. The post 1-800 Contacts Loses YET ANOTHER Trademark Lawsuit Over Competitive Keyword Ads–1-800 Contacts v.
Viacom also engaged a market research company to learn more about “southern beach culture,” which suggested that the term Flora-bama was “either unknown or though [sic] to refer strictly to the bar.” This justification is at least consistent with the core idea of trademarklaw. New Life Art, Inc., 3d 1266 (11th Cir.
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.
Ujoy Technology and Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha vs Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd [Delhi High Court] This year the concept of transborder reputation in trademarklaw saw two important interpretations from the Delhi High Court. Meticulous Market Research Pvt. Bolt Technology v. First, in Toyota v.
Marketing Channels. The court says “This factor might be relevant if ALG’s advertisements appeared on a lesser-known or product-specific search engine.” So much time and money was wasted on the trademark battles over keyword ad sales back in the old days, and it would break my heart if we do all of that over again.
If they really wanted to build their business, they could have invested that money into marketing instead of legal fees. Consistent with that, Aliign is spending more marketing dollars to appeal this lawsuit to the Ninth Circuit. lululemon appeared first on Technology & MarketingLaw Blog. Reyes & Adler v.
Mary Catherine Amerine, Reasonably Careless Consumers in FalseAdvertising 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 falseadvertising.
Marketing channels. ” Every sex worker just took massive umbrage at the judge’s condescending stereotypes about the role of online marketing in their financial and safety decisions. Luxy appeared first on Technology & MarketingLaw Blog. It’s really offensive. Defendant’s intent.
Panel #2, TM, moderated by Vice Dean Felix Wu Jack Daniels says that use as a trademark is special: like copyright’s bête noire, confusion caused by trademark use is the central concern of trademarklaw. Tam and Brunetti, striking down various bars on registration. Then, in Lexmark v.
Across-the-board social media and influencer marketing integration are aspects of the present-day artificiality regarding persuasive brand dissemination in faces and identities. However, it provides both good challenges and opportunities under trademarklaw. Therefore, a brand can be registered in the U.S.
Another way to put it is that aesthetic functionality requires you to have an understanding of the definition of the market in which other clothing makers should be free to compete. Nor did he allege any lost business opportunities as the result of their presence on the market.
Changes in TrademarkLaw and Evidentiary Rules Introduction: Jake Linford Before courts admitted surveys routinely, they were concerned about hearsay. There’s a strain of marketing literature that uses scanner data: tries to measure effect of brand extension on parent brand. New market entry opportunities?
We can make things excludable through tech and law, making things that previously looked like public goods providable by private markets. Book project: how do we reconcile that with our intuitions about markets and distributive justice? A few say that you can’t use marketing messages other than what they approve.
I’m going to talk briefly about last term’s Jack Daniels case—a trademark infringement and dilution case—as well as Elster, argued last week, in which the Justices appeared inclined to reject a First Amendment challenge to the refusal to register the claimed mark “TRUMP TOO SMALL” for t-shirts. Trademark: In Jack Daniel’s 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