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.
Here, the city successfully wins remand (and a fee award) in this opinion rejecting removal of its falseadvertising suit against Exxon, other fossil fuel companies, and their top trade association for violations of New York City’s Consumer Protection Law. Following a similar case, Connecticut v.
The First Amendment has long coexisted with no-fault falseadvertising laws. Citing Dastar and Rogers ; noting in a footnote that Dastar suggested that Lanham Act falseadvertising claims might sometimes govern statements about artistic provenance without raising any First Amendment concern.] City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d
3, 2021) Plaintiffs alleged falseadvertising of TTE’s TVs in violation of California and New Jersey law; the court granted the motion to dismiss but allowed leave to amend as to injunctive relief claims. The TVs weren’t allegedly worthless if truthfully advertised. Was this plausible?
It submitted 14 social media posts “which it contends shows consumers and retailers attributed a particular source to Defendants’ liquor and Plaintiff’s television show.” The managing director declared “[a]t the time that I chose the name Peaky Blinder, I had never heard of [Plaintiff’s] Peaky Blinders television program.
20, 2021) iTunes allows consumers to “Rent” or “Buy” movies, television shows, music and other content. Apple, Inc., 2021 WL 1549667, No. 2:20-cv-01628-JAM-AC (E.D. Renting is less expensive; buying leads the content to appear in a consumer’s “Purchased” folder.
In 2010, the Today Show—a morning television show aired on the NBC network—aired a segment in which it mailed a single item of gold to ten different mail-in precious metals dealers and compared the prices offered. Beyond 79, LLC, 2020 WL 9848431, No. 18-CV-00837 EAW (W.D.N.Y. 15, 2020) Previous opinion.
Television , the court held that artwork shown in the background for 27 seconds in an episode of ROC was sufficiently recognizable to cross the de minimis threshold for actionable copying of protected expression. The judge dismissed the business disparagement, falseadvertising, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment claims.
Hepp is a television newscaster. This ruling directly conflicts with the Ninth Circuit’s rule, which says that all state IP claims are preempted by Section 230. This creates the foundation for a possible Supreme Court review of this issue. About the Case.
Defendant’s argument confuses the question of whether a reasonable consumer would likely be misled by an allegedly falseadvertisement with the separate question—relevant where reliance is at issue—of whether an individual consumer was misled by the advertisement….
Plaintiffs sued for falseadvertising and false endorsement under the Lanham Act, violation of their right to publicity, deceptive trade practices under New York GBL Section 349, and defamation. 2021), which considered all these claims except for falseadvertising. The court was guided by Electra v. 3d 233 (2d Cir.
Painaway advertised its products as “Australia’s No. 1 Joint & Muscle Spray and Cream Topical Pain Relief Brand” on: (1) its Australian website; (2) social media; and (3) Ultimate Fighting Championship (“UFC”) athletes’ clothing in matches televised in the United States.
May 19, 2023) Whereas the timeshare falseadvertising cases might be making law largely applicable to other timeshare cases, what’s going on in the strip club advertising cases might have somewhat broader implications. The district court concluded that plaintiffs’ false endorsement claims were foreclosed by Electra v.
The policy excluded personal and advertising injury, including “publication, in any manner, of material that violates a person’s right of privacy,” disparagement, use of advertising ideas, and trade dress infringement, if such activities “arise out of or are part of ‘exhibitions and related marketing,’ ” which are broadly defined.
Premier sold Joint Juice for treating/preventing joint pain; a jury found it liable to a consumer class for falseadvertising under NY law; and the district court awarded statutory damages to the class, but cut them by over 90%. The court also rejected challenges to certain evidentiary rulings at trial.
Yes: They plausibly pled “a commercial interest in giving scientific presentations, appearing on scientific television shows, and participating in science-related events.” I will note here, as I often do, that in a falseadvertising case these allegations would likely be treated as conclusory at best.
The current federal administrative regime for regulating deceptive advertising targeted at children, however, falls far short of what is necessary to enable the FTC or any other federal agency to respond to the revelations in the Michigan Study with meaningful protections for children.
Chesney also performed on the Lounge’s beachfront stage at a 2014 concert broadcast as “Kenny Chesney: Live at the Flora-Bama” on Country Music Television (CMT), a Viacom channel. As one of MGFB’s principals testified as to Kenny Chesney’s televised concert: [H]e asked permission to do it, and we told him it was fine. It was him.
She alleged both health and moral concerns about foreign beef, which she alleged was produced under dangerous and environmentally destructive/harmful labor conditions. She challenged both use of a “U.S.D.A. CHOICE/Produced in the USA” graphic, as well as use of the official USDA grade shields in red, white and blue.
Relying extensively on the rationale of the Single Judge’s order, the Division Bench held that Section 31D specifically deals only with Radio and Television Broadcasting. The judgement was passed in October 2022, but was uploaded in September 2023 on the High Court’s website. d) Other IP Developments 1.
26, 2025) Pepperdine sued Netflix for Lanham Act trademark infringement, contributory infringement, dilution, falseadvertising, and coordinate state claims based on Netflixs Running Point series, which depicts a team known as the Waves. Its an original comedic television series created by Mindy Kaling and Warner Bros.
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