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.
Skillz sued its competitor Papaya, alleging falseadvertising under federal and state law. That is, falseadvertising was sufficiently pled as to statements that games on Skillzs platforms did not use bots, matched players evenly, and allowed users to withdraw funds at any time. Skillz Platform Inc. Papaya Gaming, Ltd.,
To the extent that the claims lead consumers to believe that Crocs are “made of a material ‘different than any other footwear,’” a difference made credible to consumers by references to patents and/or proprietary knowledge, that is a claim about the physical nature of specific product components, not about authorship.
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. Natera, Inc., 19-662-CFC, 2023 WL 4561059 (D. Natera made superiority claims for its Prospera.
But under Twiqbal , plaintiff alleged more: They specifically advertised their ability to help companies who had been “shut down” by helping them “get real merchant accounts” and providing “chargeback mitigation.”
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.
12, 2023) Following a large verdict for Monster on falseadvertising claims, this opinion discusses extensively the requirements for injunctive relief in falseadvertising cases. A lost customer may constitute the loss of a relationship with a customer as well as reference to other potential customers.”
May 17, 2023) The court grants these timeshare plaintiffs’ motion for a bench trial, ruling that the Seventh Amendment doesn’t guarantee a jury trial in a falseadvertising case where the plaintiffs seek only equitable remedies. Timeshare Lawyers P.A., 2023 WL 3510374, No. 20-24681-Civ-Scola (S.D. Hard Candy, Ltd.
22, 2022) The court here allows an antitrust claim to proceed based in part on allegedly false/misleading statements because they form part of the alleged anticompetitive product-hopping scheme and because the unique characteristics of the drug market make market-based responses to falseadvertising difficult.
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
Although in the copyright decision, the court made reference to “rather surprising oversights,” UpCodes corrected issues when notified by ICC. UpCodes, Inc., 2021 WL 1236106, Nos. 6261 (VM) & 20 Civ. 4316 (VM) (S.D.N.Y.
7, 2022) The court upheld a contempt finding based on an underlying falseadvertising claim. Also, a press release that discussed separate litigation in Italy about who owned VSL#3’s bacterial strains, unfairly compared VSL#3 and Visbiome referred to plaintiffs’ “aggressive efforts to sell their competing, generic probiotic product.”
Someone has referred you here because you’ve said something wrong about the laws related to web scraping in the United States. You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About The First Amendment.” The prior part explained the most recent ruling, a devastating but not unexpected loss for hiQ. Don’t worry! You’re not alone.
On GitHub, the landing page was called “ONgDB – Neo4j Enterprise Fork: Graphs for Everyone,” contained numerous references to Neo4j throughout, and was very similar to that of Neo4j EE. Summary judgment granted on state and federal falseadvertising claims. False designation of origin: Yep.
JC Penny, for example, has been hit with a class action lawsuit in the Southern District of California over its alleged advertising practice of using “falsereference pricing.” The products, Carranza claims , were never sold at the listed reference price as advertised. Do the claims have merit?
4, 2023) McCracken alleged that SlimFast food products were falselyadvertised as “CLINICALLY PROVEN [ – ] LOSE WEIGHT & KEEP IT OFF” on the front of their packaging. McCracken v. KSF Acquisition Corp., 2023 WL 5667869, No. 5:22-cv-01666-SB-SHK (C.D. 50 Clinical studies prove the SlimFast Plan helps you effectively lose weight."
2, 2024) Noriega alleged that Abbott’s PediaSure falselyadvertised that it was “[c]linically proven to help kids grow.” Abbott Laboratories, F.Supp.3d 3d -, 2024 WL 402925, No. 4014 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. The label also includes a cartoon giraffe next to, and exceeding the height of, a cartoon ruler.
Entrepreneur’s desire to bring forth a claim for falseadvertising against a competitor in a similar market is not unusual behavior.” Along with adding a defendant, Entrepreneur might eventually be allowed to add a falseadvertising claim, based on facts that were allegedly discovered only during Roach’s deposition.
30, 2024) (R&R) Recommendation: Dastar should block Qingdao’s Lanham Act falseadvertising counterclaims based on Lashify’s claim to be the originator of lash technology, but false patent marking counterclaims should survive. This isn’t a false statement of origin (but what about character or qualities?)
million consent judgment, which defendants touted in a press release and advertised on Zinus’s website even after the court vacated the stipulated judgment. Courts have generally harmonized the Lanham Act with the Patent Act by requiring bad faith before claims about patent infringement can constitute falseadvertising.
AB allegedly began advertising for a similar product, claiming that its load bars have “30% more Holding Power than similar Disposable Load Bars,” allegedly an admitted reference to Logistick. 15, 2021) Logistick sells disposable load bars which are used to secure cargo freight during transport.
Amgen argued that there was no impact because the ads didn’t refer to Sandoz or Ziextenzo, and Sandoz couldn’t identify a single patient, prescriber, or insurer that would have used Ziextenzo but chose Onpro because of the advertising claims. And economic analysis is a valid means of proving an injury caused by falseadvertising.
17, 2020) A lot of stuff here; I will ignore the non-falseadvertising related aspects of this mostly antitrust case. The court says the usual not-good things about falseadvertising’s relationship to antitrust, unfortunately: Deceptive speech usually doesn’t violate antitrust laws. 17-md-2785-DDC-TJJ (D.
References in Columbia’s marketing materials to “the on-campus experience” were often mere puffery “too vague to be enforced as a contract,” such as a statement in a University publication that “Columbia is an in-person kind of place.”
Could ULC Monastery show cognizable harm? On the Lanham Act claim, that required showing sales diversion or lessening of goodwill. The Ninth Circuit has “generally held. that ‘when a plaintiff competes directly with a defendant, a misrepresentation will give rise to a presumed commercial injury that is sufficient to establish standing.’”
JC Penny, for example, has been hit with a class action lawsuit in the Southern District of California over its alleged advertising practice of using “falsereference pricing.” The products, Carranza claims , were never sold at the listed reference price as advertised. Do the claims have merit?
PTRA argued that, because Pasadena has referred to the Rose Bowl Game as “the game” in the past, the Rose Bowl Game was readily identifiable without using the term. This also got rid of the breach of contract claim, which was based on the alleged trademark infringement and falseadvertising.
In Sybersound , the Ninth Circuit explained that the “nature, characteristics, and qualities” of the karaoke recording referred to things like the “quality of its audio and visual effects.” Such attributes would affect the consumer’s experience rather than the rights of third parties.”
24, 2023) WS sued Wayfair, alleging patent infringement, Lanham Act falseadvertising, Massachusetts and California statutory unfair competition and Massachusetts falseadvertising based on alleged copying of West Elm products. Wayfair moved to dismiss the falseadvertising and unfair competition claims.
Contributory falseadvertising under the Lanham Act: The Ninth Circuit has held that for contributory liability, “a defendant must have (1) ‘intentionally induced’ the primary infringer to infringe, or (2) continued to supply an infringing product to an infringer with knowledge that the infringer is mislabeling the particular product supplied.”
I’m only going to discuss the false association/falseadvertising bits; as to the latter, state law provides more protection than federal because of the “commercial advertising or promotion” requirement for Lanham Act falseadvertising. The false association/coordinate state law claims survived.
23, 2024) Skillz sued its competitor in mobile gaming, Papaya, for violating federal and NY law against falseadvertising by falselyadvertising that its games pit human players against each other when in fact Papaya uses bots masquerading as human players. Papaya Gaming, Ltd., 2024 WL 3526853, No. 24cvl646(DLC) (S.D.N.Y.
This was allegedly still false and misleading, and First Databank allegedly falselyadvertised that it “compile[s]” the relevant information in its database and for its coding determinations from the FDA and from manufacturers, such as Alfasigma. The database does not list any of Defendant’s own products or additional services.
Moreover, an ad on a public Facebook page that referred customers to the data sheet was a commercial advertisement within the meaning of the Lanham Act; it was intended to bolster sales and was “sufficiently disseminated” to fall within §43(a)(1)(A). Likewise, ISK adequately alleged contributory falseadvertising claims against PMG.
He then sued the court document repository websites (and other defendants) for defamation, falseadvertising, and more. He too sought to suppress references to the proceeding; that too failed. In 2020, Medina got the disclosures from the 2014 case sealed. The trial court anti-SLAPPED that lawsuit. The appeals court affirms.
The court denies a preliminary injunction on the trademark claims based on lack of likely success on the merits, but declines to dismiss either infringement or falseadvertising claims. Indeed, the evidence shows that, in ordinary parlance, the term “good meat” is used routinely to refer to the concept of sustainably sourced meat.
In characterizing Section 230, every reference to “immunize” is changed to “‘protect.” The prior opinion contained two references to Section 230 as “broad.” Courts have rejected Section 230 defenses against claims for falseadvertising, deceptive trade practices, and tortious interference.
3, 2023) Potentially interesting pretrial rulings in this falseadvertising/TM case: Goli’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Jerry Wind was granted in part to preclude him from opining on the ultimate question of likely confusion or balancing the trademark infringement factors, which was for the jury. GOLO, LLC v. 20-667-RGA (D.
24, 2023) Courts in particular kinds of falseadvertising cases say that scientific claims are not falsifiable, even as the majority of workaday falseadvertising claims involving scientific fact are (correctly) treated as falsifiable. American Soc’y of Anesthesiologists, Inc., 4th -, 2023 WL 2621131, No. 22-1411 (3d Cir.
Portkey sued for unfair competition/reverse passing off, falseadvertising, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, as well as related state-law claims. In 2022, the relationship dissolved; Portkey objected to Venkateswaran’s alleged references to Portkey and its asserted trademarks since 2022.
This is a falseadvertising lawsuit again the mobile app game Game of Thrones: Conquest. Also, the district court took issue with the 2020 call-to-action referring to the TOS as “Terms of Use” when it was actually the “Terms of Service.” sought to send the case to arbitration. Warner Bros.
Each log entry includes the date of the call and the caller’s name, as well as a column labeled “[w]hat they said referred by.” Assuming each of the 236 references to Lerner & Rowe in the call logs is a confused consumer, the court says that means only about 0.2% clickthrough rate. LoanStreet v. Reyes & Adler v.
To be sure, some posts did refer to a future party, but none had any particulars. Nor did it err in its falseadvertising analysis, which requires likely deception of reasonable consumers. The mere statement that Doe was a “party planner” was not enough, in the overall context, to allege commercial use.
The asterisk following “dermatitis” referred to this statement: “*the most common allergy in infancy. Although Gerber referred to the qualified health claim determination in its ads, it didn’t use any of the approved versions. A]dvertisements that reframe critiques of a product as praise can constitute falseadvertising.”
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