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
.” I’ll focus on the false designation of origin claim regarding Troia’s keyword ads. Troia claimed that he did not use the LoanStreet trademark in commerce. Just referencing a trademark on the Internet does not support a trademark claim, full stop. The court displays some of the ads: Use in Commerce.
7, 2022) Melwani owns the Royal Silk trademark for “a wide variety of products.” Similar searches were also “frustrating”; Melwani alleged that the search results were “erroneous, scattershot, mingled” as well as “consistently confusing, misleading, false, and deceptive.” False designation of origin/falseadvertising: Lasoff v.
The year saw many trademark stories in the news as backlogs continued at the USPTO even while application filing numbers dropped from their all time highs during the two previous years. Here are the biggest trademark stories of 2022 that we have been following at EMP&A. Celebrity trademark messes. Queen of Christmas.
In an April 2023 summary judgment ruling , the plaintiff established that it “possesses the legally protectable, incontestable trademarks TEXAS TAMALE and TEXAS TAMALE COMPANY.” The court said that the trademark owner had been using the trademark since 1985 and registered the trademark in 2006. ” Uh oh.
Maybe companies can resurrect noncompetes by prohibiting uses of their trademarks in former employees’ resumes! Maybe companies can resurrect noncompetes by prohibiting uses of their trademarks in former employees’ resumes! This is a joke, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen.)
Edible Arrangements objected to Google selling its trademark to trigger keyword ads. They filed a trademark lawsuit in 2018 but abandoned the suit when it got sent to arbitration. However, Edible invoked theft law and disavowed consumer confusion. However, they didn’t give up! Conversion.
Imagine owning a building in which you are renting out living space at your set prices and then coming across an advertisement that those same living spaces are available for a nightly, weekly, monthly or even annual fee. The scenario is actually playing out right now for many landlords. By: Thompson Coburn LLP
I’ve often wondered about the conversations that take place between trademark owner and counsel before filing a keyword advertising lawsuit. You can have a court declare your trademarks weak or invalid so they are less valuable than when you started. More Posts About Keyword Advertising. * How did that come about?
LVSA sued Groupon for trademark infringement. Melwani sued Amazon for trademark infringement, dilution, and more. With respect to the trademark claim, the court says the Ninth Circuit’s Multi-Time Machine v. Google. * Competitive Keyword Advertising Still Isn’t Trademark Infringement, Unless….
This is a case involving a trademark owner and a competitive keyword advertiser. The trademark owner memorably (and ridiculously) characterized the rival as engaging in “keyword conquesting,” a term I encourage you never to use. The court already sent that trademark claim to the jury ( my blog post on that ruling ).
Quincy sued BRYK “under multiple legal theories for making unauthorized sales of products branded with Quincy’s PREVAGEN trademark.” But the unauthorized sale of a genuine product does not violate trademarklaw. Even after default.
To many trademark owners, it’s a simple decision to sue when the advertiser includes the trademark in the ad copy. So, what exactly is the trademark owner fighting for here? This is a bad ad buy by Allied, AND it’s a bad trademark enforcement decision by Porta-Fab. So why did I say the case was stupid?
Whatever legal ambiguity might have existed then has been decisively resolved, at least with respect to competitive keyword ads that don’t use the trademark in the ad copy. Courts almost never found trademark infringement in those cases, but it was only in the last decade that we started to get opinions saying this bluntly and clearly.
Kudos to Nicolet Law for surviving the motion to dismiss, but I’m wondering if it will ultimately regret filing this lawsuit–either because its trademark gets busted or because it made a federal case out of nothing. For more background on competitive keyword advertising by lawyers, see this article. LoanStreet v.
As a result, interim orders in trademark infringement cases have become somewhat standardized. However, even in areas of the law that are not fully developed, it is crucial to indicate the legal basis for an order, even if briefly, as this requirement should not be sacrificed for the sake of judicial expediency. In Gautam Gambhir v.
17 years later, I’m still blogging their ignoble trademark lawsuits. Some “highlights” of 1-800 Contacts’ trademark jurisprudence over the years: 1-800 Contacts v. misinterpreted the law of competitive keyword ads for many, many years. More Posts About Keyword Advertising. WhenU (2d Cir.
This leads to a twisted conclusion that dictionaries include trademarks as IP (not surprisingly), so “that inclusion implies the right to publicity by analogy [because] the right of publicity and trademark are close analogues.” So too for Hepp’s statutory claim against Facebook.
Instead of protecting consumers, this bill gives trademark owners absolute control over online marketplaces by overturning Tiffany v. Because the bill makes it impossible for online marketplaces to avoid contributory trademark liability, this bill will drive most or all online marketplaces out of the industry.
22, 2022) This is a super messy case with a lot going on; I’m going to blog about it mainly to highlight a new thing you can apparently do with a trademark application , which is use it on non-Amazon platforms to gain advantages. But (see below) Jones didn’t plead trademark infringement [would fraud on the PTO have worked?
The court starts with a general observation: “Although it might at first seem that one firm’s purchase of another firm’s trademark as a Google keyword would constitute infringement, courts generally have not adopted that view,” citing Network Automation. Allied Modular * Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute FalseAdvertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet
Earlier this year, I blogged a ruling holding that Seeking Arrangements’ trademark infringement claim against Luxy could proceed because Luxy included Seeking Arrangements’ purported trademarks in its keyword metatags. Google. * Competitive Keyword Advertising Still Isn’t Trademark Infringement, Unless….
July 31, 2024) The trademark owner Alsa sells chrome paint. Walmart doesn’t carry the trademark owners’ items. In searches for the trademarks in Walmart’s internal search engine, Walmart only shows unrelated items–not items from the trademark owner or any competitors. Walmart Inc. Cites to Sen 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.
The defendants bought competitive keyword ads on Adler’s trademarks, which Adler objected to. The district court initially dismissed Adler’s trademark claims , but the Fifth Circuit unfortunately revived the claims citing initial interest confusion (UGH). LoanStreet v. Second Circuit Says: Great, Have a Nice Day!–1-800
The plaintiff has a trademark registration for the “Nursing CE Central” mark for providing continuing education for nurses. A rival, Colibri, displayed in the trademark in its Google keyword ads, but it claims it has stopped doing so after the lawsuit was filed. . ” Actual confused. “Undetermined.” Not relevant.
To the extent [the Board’s] appeal attempts to improperly use trademarklaws to block the expression of negative views about the university and its administration, such efforts fail.” Nor did it err in its falseadvertising analysis, which requires likely deception of reasonable consumers.
Aliign “is an event, lifestyle, and apparel company” allegedly with a first trademark use in 2011. Aliign sued lululemon for trademark infringement. Want to Engage in Anti-Competitive Trademark Bullying? Google. * Competitive Keyword Advertising Still Isn’t Trademark Infringement, Unless….
Steeplechase has a copyright for the book, “Piano Book for Adult Beginners: Teach Yourself How to Play Famous Piano Songs, Read Music, Theory & Technique” and registered trademark rights in STEEPLECHASE ARTS & PRODUCTIONS for, among other things, music instruction books, including for the Piano Book. Was this literally false?
Jim Adler runs a personal injury law firm that claims trademarks in JIM ADLER, THE HAMMER, TEXAS HAMMER, and EL MARTILLO TEJANO. It bids on the Adler trademarks for “click-to-call” keyword ads. ” Adler sued for trademark and related claims. ” Adler sued for trademark and related claims.
It is commonly used in trademarklaw and derives its authority from the First Amendment of the U.S. The plaintiff was the performer Ginger Rogers against the producers and distributors of the film “Ginger and Fred” for creating a false impression of her involvement in the production. Constitution.
The International Trademark Association has warned the Federal Circuit to be wary of restricting falseadvertising claims under federal trademarklaw in certain circumstances, arguing that a lower court decision involving footwear company Crocs wasn't clear.
Hawrych’s name, likeness, and trademark (‘Hawrych MD’) in various advertisements.” Thus, the falseadvertising claim would be dismissed. Falseadvertisinglaw has a much more structured way of accounting for implications than trademarklaw does.
Weintraub Tobin’s Intellectual Property podcast, The Briefing , published nearly 50 episodes this year covering a variety of IP issues relating to trademark, copyright, and entertainment law. As we look back, we want to share The Briefing’s most popular episodes in 2023. 3: What Now for Fair Use After Warhol v. Goldsmith The U.S.
Image from here In the case of Sterling Agro Industries Limited vs ASR Trading Company , the Delhi High Court while dealing with a trademark infringement suit, imputed mala fide intention to ASR Trading’s (the Defendant) act of applying for a trademark registration. His previous posts can be accessed here.
She allegedly falsely represented that she was authorized to deliver Londra’s “recording artist and songwriting services. Big Ligas sued for tortious interference and for falseadvertising and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. Falseadvertising: “That Ms.
Plaintiffs brought trademark and related claims, including takings claims, all of which the court dismissed. While Plaintiffs seek prospective relief, they have provided the Court with no basis from which it can infer any possibility of an ongoing violation of federal law.” Plus, there was no commercial advertisement or promotion.
Thus, any falseadvertising claim would lie against Albaum, not [directly] against ChromaDex. ChromaDex’s only proof of injury was its excluded damages expert report, which simply assumed that all of Elysium’s sales would have gone to ChromaDex without the allegedly falseadvertising. “[T]here
Comment: trademarklaw bounces rather casually between normative and empirical understandings of the reasonable consumer. These cases provide great evidence that falseadvertisinglaw does so as well.] Why disregard the survey? The survey couldn’t change what reasonable consumers would understand.
Grimaldi grounds, the district court’s grant of summary judgment to MTV on the resulting trademark claims. But Plaintiffs contend they ‘verbally’ licensed their trademark to Kenny Chesney and the company that represents him, Blue Chair Bay Records, and then Blue Chair Bay Records sublicensed the rights to Viacom for the broadcast on CMT.”
We’ve tried to represent a diversity of subject matter also in this list, so it’s a mixed bag of cases dealing with patents, trademarks, copyright law etc. Bolt Technology v. First, in Toyota v. Tech Square which was passed against a cancellation petition filed by Toyota against the registration of “Alphard” by Tech Square.
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.
This is a major ruling validating the legitimacy of competitive keyword advertising, which occurs when an advertiser purchases and displays ads triggered in response to third-party trademarks. Recently, the “ Second Circuit Tells Trademark Owners to Stop Suing Over Competitive Keyword Advertising.”
24, 2021) A rare case finding no violation of the right of publicity or trademarklaw from an allegedly false endorsement based on lack of harm. Benefit to the defendant, the court says, is not itself harm to the plaintiff—see also this recent Note on trademark standing by my former student Lauren Bilow.
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. I’ve left out the parts specific to registered trademarks and the reference to treaties. Taco Cabana, from 1992.
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