Remove Designs Remove False Advertising Remove Marketing Remove Reference
article thumbnail

False Patent Marking as False Advertising: Overcoming Dastar

Patently-O

Dawgs’ (“Dawgs”) counterclaim for false advertising under the Lanham Act. This case began back in 2006 when Crocs sued Double Diamond and others for patent infringement of Crocs’s design patents. Crocs largely prevailed in those actions. 1125(a)(1)(B) (Section 43 of the Lanham Act).

article thumbnail

False advertising and TM infringement receive very different damages treatment: case in point

43(B)log

17, 2023) Another entry in the “courts treat Lanham Act false advertising very differently than Lanham Act trademark infringement, despite identical damages provisions” line. CareDx sued Natera for false advertising. Nor did significant sales growth linked to the marketing campaign at issue. Natera, Inc.,

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

Using dominant competitor's part names/numbers for comparison isn't false advertising, TM infringement, or (c) infringement

43(B)log

15, 2023) Simpson sued its competitor MiTek for using Simpson part numbers for structural connectors/fasteners for use in the construction industry in its catalogs/other promotional material; the court here, after a nonjury trial before the magistrate judge, rather comprehensively rejects its false advertising, trademark, and copyright claims. (It

article thumbnail

falsely advertising "proprietary" and "exclusive" material isn't actionable under Dastar

43(B)log

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., 2021 WL 4170997, No. 06-cv-00605-PAB-KMT, No. 16-cv-02004-PAB-KMT (D.

article thumbnail

antitrust claim against Suboxone, including false advertising, survives summary judgment

43(B)log

22, 2022) The court here allows an antitrust claim to proceed based in part on allegedly false/misleading statements because they form part of the alleged anticompetitive product-hopping scheme and because the unique characteristics of the drug market make market-based responses to false advertising difficult.

article thumbnail

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

43(B)log

There was clear knowledge of the automatic stay, given that “Charter premised the campaign on false assertions regarding the Debtors’ bankruptcy cases.” Or say an unrelated competitor to a bankrupt pharmaco starts falsely advertising comparatively about its painkillers without reference to the bankruptcy. 194 (Bankr.

article thumbnail

Former distributor's continuing use of "authorized distributor" leads to TM and false advertising claims

43(B)log

but also narrows the issues somewhat; the larger infringement, cybersquatting, and false advertising claims can’t be resolved on summary judgment. Axon sued for infringement of the Taser word and design marks and for holding Taser-related domain names for ransom. Still, that was enough to create a genuine issue of fact.