43(B)log

AUGUST 17, 2021

Plaintiffs sued for false advertising and false endorsement under the Lanham Act, violation of their right to publicity, deceptive trade practices under New York GBL Section 349, and defamation. 2021), which considered all these claims except for false advertising. The court was guided by Electra v. 3d 233 (2d Cir.

Social Media 59

Social Media False Advertising Advertising Advertising 59

43(B)log

AUGUST 18, 2021

were valid and infringed, but the latter wasn’t counterfeited; SMRI’s dilution victory was vacated, but not its victories on deceptive trade practices, ACPA, false advertising, and unfair competition. It was thus barred from equitable relief for its trademark infringement, false advertising, and state deceptive trade practices claims.

Cease and Desist 64

Cease and Desist False Advertising Registration Licensing 64

43(B)log

AUGUST 9, 2021

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.

False Advertising 119

False Advertising Advertising Advertising Law 119