Remove 2021 Remove Advertising Remove False Advertising Remove Litigation
article thumbnail

Press release touting preliminary injunction can found false advertising counterclaims

43(B)log

ZimVie intervened and counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of invalidity, cancellation fo the color marks registration, declaratory judgment of noninfringement, false advertising under the Lanham Act and California law, and tortious interference. ZimVie responded that the commercial speech exception applied.

article thumbnail

false advertising & bankruptcy law: $18 million for deceptive campaign in violation of automatic stay

43(B)log

2021) Plaintiffs/Debtors argued, and the court held in relevant part, that defendants (Charter) breached the automatic stay by a literally false and intentionally misleading advertising campaign to induce the Debtors’ customers to terminate their agreements with the Debtors by telling them that bankruptcy risked impairment of their service.

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

Lexmark allows direct and contributory false advertising claims against certifier

43(B)log

19-62225-CIV-ALTMAN, 2021 WL 810279 (S.D. 3, 2021) Sometimes I worry that judicial writing is tending too much towards the flip as it moves away from prolixity, but this is a lovely example of how clear language can be deployed: If you want to build with plywood in the United States, you generally need a certification— called a PS 1-09 stamp.

article thumbnail

patent misrepresentations to prospective dealer could be false advertising under Dastar/Lexmark

43(B)log

Holsinger, 2021 WL 3617153, No. 16, 2021) Roof Maxx distributes “a soy-based liquid product that is sprayed on asphalt shingle roofs to extend the life of the shingles.” Shingle Savers counterclaimed, alleging, among other things, false advertising under the Lanham Act and violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

article thumbnail

Cracks in the foundation: Laches and proximate cause defeat auto glass false advertising claim

43(B)log

2021 WL 1215869, No. 31, 2021) Plaintiffs alleged that Safelite misrepresented the nature and characteristics of plaintiffs’ products to consumers in violation of the Lanham Act. Safelite counterclaimed for trade secret theft not related to advertising. Campfield v. Safelite Gp., 2:15-cv-2733 (S.D. can be safe and is viable.”

article thumbnail

District of Delaware Grants Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff Damages Expert’s Testimony in False Advertising Action under the Lanham Act

Delaware Intellectual Property Litigation Blog

May 7, 2021), the Court granted Natera’s motion to exclude at trial the opinions of CareDx’s damages expert relating to “corrective advertising damages.” 1117(a)(2), a successful false advertising plaintiff can recover the costs of any completed advertising that actually and reasonably responds to the defendant’s offending ads.’” Id.

article thumbnail

Competitive Keyword Advertising Claim Fails–Reflex Media v. Luxy

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Yes, this was a 2021 decision. You can see Seeking Arrangements’ ad (highlighted) showing above Luxy’s own ad and mixed in with ads for unrelated products: The court says: Plaintiffs’ advertisement does not contain the word “Luxy” or appear to cause any more confusion than the other three advertisements.