article thumbnail

Retailer has standing to assert Lanham Act false advertising claims against its own supplier

43(B)log

In summer 2020, AHBP began negotiating with the Lynd defendants for the exclusive license to market and sell a surface disinfectant/cleaner known as “Bioprotect 500” in Argentina. Lynd advertised the Product as effective against the coronavirus. the Lanham Act false advertising claim survived.

article thumbnail

An Antitrust Framework for False Advertising, out now

43(B)log

Carrier & Rebecca Tushnet, An Antitrust Framework for False Advertising , 106 Iowa L. 1841 (2021) From the introduction: Federal law presumes that false advertising harms competition. Federal law also presumes that false advertising is harmless or even helpful to competition.

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

2021 WL 4170997, No. 14, 2021) Dawgs alleged that Crocs falsely marketed its shoes in violation of the Lanham Act by advertising Croslite, the foam material that Crocs shoes are made from, as “patented,” “proprietary,” and “exclusive.” Crocs, Inc. Effervescent, Inc., 06-cv-00605-PAB-KMT, No. 16-cv-02004-PAB-KMT (D.

article thumbnail

facially plausible false advertising claim can be added to TM complaint

43(B)log

Copper Compression Brands LLC, 2021 WL 5013799, No. 27, 2021) Ideavillage sued CCB for trademark infringement and false designation of origin related to Ideavillage’s “Copper Fit” line of copper-infused compression garments. Here, the court granted leave to amend to add a false advertising claim.

article thumbnail

two Zillow false advertising cases, divergent outcomes

43(B)log

C21-312 TSZ, 2021 WL 3930694 (W.D. 2, 2021) Rex sued Zillow and the National Association of Realtors for antitrust and false advertising violations. Surprisingly, the antitrust claims survive, as do false advertising claims agains Zillow. 2:21-cv-00012, 2021 WL 3680717 (D. Zillow Inc., Zillow, Inc.,

article thumbnail

False advertising is distinct from violation of antidumping rules; FTC/AGs needed

43(B)log

United States, 2021 WL 5371406, No. 18, 2021) I can’t improve upon the court’s excellent summary and won’t try, instead joining in the call for FTC/AGs etc. That the producer defrauded consumers is of no moment for antidumping purposes, as the Department lacks jurisdiction to police false advertising violations.

article thumbnail

over dissent, 9th Cir. denies injury presumption to false advertising claimant

43(B)log

2021 WL 4622504, No. 7, 2021) Quidel appealed the grant of summary judgment to Siemens on Quidel’s Lanham Act false advertising claims and related state claims. Quidel alleged that Siemens advertised (1) but provided (2). Also, and weird to present it this way, Siemens didn’t engage in false advertising to doctors.