article thumbnail

False Patent Marking as False Advertising: Overcoming Dastar

Patently-O

Dawgs’ (“Dawgs”) counterclaim for false advertising under the Lanham Act. In 2016, Dawgs added new asserted counterclaims against Crocs, including a claim for false advertising under the Lanham Act. Crocs largely prevailed in those actions. 1125(a)(1)(B) (Section 43 of the Lanham Act). See Zenith Elecs.

article thumbnail

game spat expands beyond false advertising to TM and (c)

43(B)log

Skillz sued its competitor Papaya, alleging false advertising under federal and state law. That is, false advertising 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.,

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

falsely advertising "proprietary" and "exclusive" material isn't actionable under Dastar

43(B)log

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.

article thumbnail

False advertising and TM infringement receive very different damages treatment: case in point

43(B)log

17, 2023) Another entry in the “courts treat Lanham Act false advertising very differently than Lanham Act trademark infringement, despite identical damages provisions” line. CareDx sued Natera for false advertising. Natera, Inc., 19-662-CFC, 2023 WL 4561059 (D. Natera made superiority claims for its Prospera.

article thumbnail

aiding and abetting liability in false advertising cases

43(B)log

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.”

article thumbnail

copying/explicit references let Roblox proceed with dubious (c) claim; Lego should be watching

43(B)log

Roblox sued for copyright infringement, false advertising, trademark infringement, false association and false designation of origin, trade dress infringement, intentional interference with contractual relations, breach of contract, and false advertising and unfair competition under California law.

Copying 94
article thumbnail

Monster wins permanent injunction against VPX in false advertising case

43(B)log

12, 2023) Following a large verdict for Monster on false advertising claims, this opinion discusses extensively the requirements for injunctive relief in false advertising cases. A lost customer may constitute the loss of a relationship with a customer as well as reference to other potential customers.”