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
15, 2021) Disagreeing with a case against Apple , the court here concludes that Amazon’s “buy” option that doesn’t give consumers ownership does not harm consumers who haven’t (yet) lost access to the content, rejecting the price premium theory for reasons that don’t make much sense to me. Amazon.com, 2021 WL 4819602, No.
There was no controversy as to whether Pasadena had an “ownership” interest in the relevant trademarks. Falseadvertising: Pasadena’s mayor allegedly gave an interview to the New York Times and stated that “the city [ ] shares a trademark on the name of the game with the Tournament of Roses Assocation [.]”
NFTs are unique digital assets that are digital representations of ownership of real-world items. Nike argued that the NFTs’ inflated prices and terms of purchase and ownership have led to public criticism and opinion that the StockX NFTs are a scam. The Nike Suit.
Apple, Inc., 2021 WL 1549667, No. 2:20-cv-01628-JAM-AC (E.D. 20, 2021) iTunes allows consumers to “Rent” or “Buy” movies, television shows, music and other content. Renting is less expensive; buying leads the content to appear in a consumer’s “Purchased” folder.
Roblox sued for copyright infringement, falseadvertising, trademark infringement, false association and false designation of origin, trade dress infringement, intentional interference with contractual relations, breach of contract, and falseadvertising and unfair competition under California law.
In any event, the licence will determine the rights afforded to the purchase, which usually confirm that no copyright ownership is passed, and that the purchase is prevented from adapting, reproducing, or communicating the work to the public. The terms of ownership and remuneration vary between platforms.
On 24 June 2022, BAYC sued Ryder Ripps, a conceptual artist and NFT creator for trade mark infringement, unfair competition, falseadvertising, cybersquatting and other cause of actions before the Central District of California. This is a U.S
Falseadvertising: Plaintiffs didn’t allege that Nobelle altered the merchandise in any way; “instead, the false statement arises from implication, from the fact that Nobelle is selling products that are not theirs to sell and, in the case of ‘The Line’ items, products it does not have the authority to sell.”
This case concerns major players in the world of professional polo, their efforts to produce and clone genetically superior horses, and the ownership disputes that have arisen from those efforts.” Allegedly, these statements, plus the use of the horses’ names as given by La Dolfina, constituted falseadvertising and false association.
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.
12, 2021) After Lexmark , can a competitor bring a false association claim when the false association is with an unrelated third party? This court answers yes, though limits the effect of that by applying what looks like ordinary falseadvertising analysis.
Although Jones was within the zone of interests of the Lanham Act by virtue of his alleged ownership of an unregistered mark, he didn’t allege proximate cause. Even without standing, Jones failed to state a claim for false association or falseadvertising. He failed to allege a “valid, protectable trademark.”
The falseadvertising parts: Jeong alleged that Nexo advertised to consumers that it does not own users’ collateral (e.g., Clients retain 100% ownership of their digital assets. while acting otherwise—eventually invoking its ownership right over users’ collateral to justify liquidation of that collateral (e.g.
Chiusa’s claims: willful copyright infringement; breach of the oral distribution agreement; trademark infringement, falseadvertising, trade dress/trade name infringement, and false designation of origin undre the Lanham Act; a Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claim; and conversion.
Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc. 20, 2021) In this timeshare exit falseadvertising litigation, the court excludes Wyndham’s expert. Timeshare exit entities like defendant TET used “online advertising and oral sales pitches to timeshare owners to convince them to sign up for TET’s service.” Sussman, 2021 WL 4948099, No.
Eventually, instead of monthly compensation, Von Berg offered Hawrych a 10% ownership interest in Nutra-Luxe, which worked for 16 years. Thus, the falseadvertising claim would be dismissed. Falseadvertising law has a much more structured way of accounting for implications than trademark law does.
Copyright ownership: At this stage, the court accepted as true the allegation that Darger did not gift his works to the Lerners. E waits decades until A is dead; and then E publishes it under a purported grant from A, there is scant reason to credit the necessary ingredient of A’s intent to convey copyright ownership.”
Falseadvertising: Sybersound Recs., It’s not enough to allege that a defendant provided false information about the copyright owner without the resulting inducement etc. Copyright ownership information is CMI. But surely the copyright ownership claims affected Apple ’s behavior. 3d 1137 (9th Cir.
Amazon argued that “buy” didn’t mean perpetual ownership, and that it sufficiently disclosed the risk of losing access. The court disagreed: there’s a plausible difference in value between owning outright versus purchasing a revocable license. Buy” was also plausibly deceptive.
DealMaker alleged that defendants stole its trade secrets and also alleged violation of state and federal falseadvertising law. Challenged claim: DealMaker’s customers do not retain ownership over their own data. Defendant Marble is Issuance’s co-founder and chief executive officer.
30, 2022) Pegasystems alleged that defendants, which compete with it in the business process management (BPM) software field, engaged in falseadvertising and commercial disparagement in an online report that portrayed Pegasystems unfavorably. 19-11461-PBS, 2022 WL 4630231, F.Supp.3d Previous discussion.) Chapter 93A).
Perhaps overreacting, Wakefern sued for trademark infringement and falseadvertising in violation of the Lanham Act and violation of state unfair competition law, which is coextensive and thus disappears from our story. Falseadvertising: Not commercial advertising or promotion.
Defendants NGT and NGE advertised an ability to help customers terminate their timeshare contract or ownership; other defendants were part of the exit process. As detailed below, none of the advertising specifically mentioned Diamond, nor did it direct, instruct nor encourage consumers to stop paying on their timeshare obligations.
WPI counterclaimed against Restellini and third-party Institut Restellini SAS – Documentation Centre alleging copyright infringement and falseadvertising. But WPI’s allegations still went to contested ownership of the information contained in the Modigliani Material, rather than the Modigliani Material as a physical product.
NFT background: In early 2022, StockX introduced Vault NFTs, which featured Nike’s trademarks and provided the holder ownership of an associated physical item. As for the positivity of the ads, “consumer surveys in falseadvertising cases commonly display the challenged advertisement.”
Lanham Act falseadvertising: The theory was that Meta misrepresented “the creation and ownership” of Logan’s photos. Dastar doesn’t clearly bar falseadvertising §43(a)(1)(B) claims in general, but it does bar the claim as pled here: “a copyright claim repackaged under a trademark statute.” 3d 1137 (9th Cir.
The court found that Industria’s argument for falseadvertising “falls on the wrong side of the line between a false association claim and a falseadvertising claim. I don’t quite get how it could show ownership of the trade dress in the US but not ownership of the word marks.)
Netaifm alleged that defendants engaged in anticompetitive market behavior when the Jain entities acquired majority shares of two local design firms, which connect manufacturers to growers, and alleged falseadvertising. Jain is Netafim’s largest competitor.
The Court also denied Columbia's request to modify the case management plan that the Court had put in place to allow a third-party vendor to inventory case-relevant documents with disputed ownership between the parties.
Currently, Bhaker is managed by iOS Sports & Entertainment, who released a statement calling such unauthorized advertising as “moment marketing free of cost,” and issued a legal notice to the above brands to take such commercials down, contending that such advertisements violated their ownership of Bhaker’s personality rights.
Here, there was a realistic likelihood of recurrence alleged given defendants’ “pattern of willful and deliberate behavior over the course of several years, as well as the continued ownership and control of Roomster by the two named individual Defendants who run the company,” despite their knowledge of the investigation.
2024) The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of FedEx’s falseadvertising claims (under the Lanham Act and Tennessee Consumer Protection Act), albeit on somewhat different grounds. Route Consultant advises CSPs on “buying and selling FXG routes, ISP and TSP ownership and operations, and fleet strategy.” 23-5456, F.4th
I’m only going to discuss the falseadvertising aspects. There is an ongoing, separate litigation about ownership of the relevant patent; plaintiffs alleged that the two inventors assigned the patent to plaintiff Orthex.
Section 43(a) reaches more broadly; the court here applies Lexmark to both falseadvertising and trademark claims. At the close of plaintiff’s evidence at trial, the court granted a directed verdict. Only an owner or a true assignee has statutory standing to bring a claim under § 32. Thus, the §32 claim failed as a matter of law.
However, in order to have legal proof of ownership, it is always advisable to register for copyright registration. If the Artist had registered his work as Copyright, he would have had legal proof of ownership in this situation. Obtain legal ownership verification. Falseadvertising should be avoided when defaming a product.
Absent a legally enforceable right to a stream of future income, the plaintiff lacks an ownership interest in it and thus there is nothing to “restore.” . … Lost profits are damages, not restitution, and are unavailable in a private action under the UCL.”
A: Falseadvertising context: FTC/state AGs. But using yellow for a saccharin packet might be falseadvertising, b/c it would communicate the presence of sucralose rather than saccharin. Merger also deals w/ the merger of function and expression, but scenes a faire is different b/c it’s a refusal of any ownership.
The law on the ownership of a social media pages created by employees for employers is evolving rapidly and varies between jurisdictions. This could also be unfair competition under Maryland law. Tito & Tita argued plaintiffs never owned the Facebook page and have no right to it, but that was a novel question.
Apple argued that it wasn’t misleading to say “buy,” because to “buy” something means to “acquire possession, ownership, or rights to the use or services of by payment especially of money.” 20, 2021), given that the claims arose under “completely different state laws.”
This exclusive right was infringed because the Defendants’ falselyadvertised themselves as Kaira, in a presumed effort to increase their own butter sales in Canada, or to attract Kaira’s prospective employees, distributors and consumers. Kaira also established trademark infringement.
So too w/falseadvertising. Assumptions skipped over in TM/falseadvertising analysis.] Benefits: nationwide right of priority, evidence of validity/exclusive ownership, right to police imports, incontestability after 5 years, symbolic benefits like ®. Death closes things off.
[Delhi High Court] On May 23, the Delhi High Court passed an interesting jud gement on the issue of ownership of the copyright in a film screenplay and held that the copyright in the screenplay of the film ‘Nayak’, lay with Satyajit Ray and on his demise, with his son Sandip Ray and the Society for Preservation of Satyajit Ray Archives (SPSRA).
Reed objected, claiming to own “equal ownership and rights” to the Jade name and also claiming violation of her right of publicity. This is why co-ownership is disfavored in trademark—but co-ownership is not prohibited. This reasoning also disposed of contributory/vicarious infringement claims against Marshall and Harris. §43(a)
Most common reason: change of ownership or structure, merger, acquisition, sponsorship change, shift from private to public, demerger Change in corporate strategy—globalization or localization, diversify or divest. A single user can obfuscate its past identity from its present. Source concealment/distortion.
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