article thumbnail

10th Circuit endorses presumption of Lanham Act false advertising injury in mostly two-player market

43(B)log

Vitamins Online sued Heartwise under the Lanham Act and Utah’s Unfair Competition Law for false advertising about the ingredients of its competitive nutritional supplements and manipulating those products’ Amazon reviews. A presumption of injury began in the Second Circuit for comparative advertising. Heartwise, Inc.,

article thumbnail

Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute False Advertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet v. Troia

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

” This definition of a service is an obvious tautology, and it’s also obviously in tension with the First Amendment. So by the time the court says “the parties are vying for users in the same ‘market,'” you know that the judge has lost the thread. ” So why wasn’t that dispositive?

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

gray marketer's counterclaims against Toyota survive, but it still must defend itself

43(B)log

Toyota USA sued Allen for grey marketing in violation of the Lanham Act and related claims, asserting that material differences included the existence of a manufacturer-backed warranty, the shipping and packaging of the parts, and the appearance and condition of the parts. The court declined to dismiss the counterclaims.

article thumbnail

IIC decision also says some things about false advertising: materiality may not be presumed from literal falsity

43(B)log

I won’t say much about that, though I do have a big question, but there are also false advertising aspects of the case. The parties compete in the market for adjustable air mattresses and related products. Baxter; 996 F.3d 3d 925 (8 th Cir. How much of this is even relevant for determining whether IIC exists? 1) was the error.

article thumbnail

Survey flaws prevent it from saving vanilla false advertising claim

43(B)log

We are definitely not there yet. This was true even though plaintiff alleged that there is a competing vanilla soymilk product on the market with a similar price point that obtains its vanilla flavor exclusively from the vanilla plant. Such an inference is just too far a reach.” What counts as common sense is quite variable.

article thumbnail

"first urgent care" practice claim isn't material or literally false

43(B)log

13, 2021) Not having a materiality or harm requirement really makes a difference in trademark cases compared to false advertising cases—look at the reasons this false advertising claim fails. AFC sued MedHelp for Lanham Act false advertising. Finally, AFC also failed to show injury.

article thumbnail

knowingly false statement of regulatory compliance may be actionable

43(B)log

2, 2023) The parties compete in the market for amalgam capture devices, which remove fillings (or pieces thereof) from dental office wastewater. Plaintiff alleged that Stoma falsely advertised that its Capt-all device, which fits onto the end of a high volume evacuator valve, is an amalgam separator and EPA compliant.