article thumbnail

Disgorgement in a noncomparative false advertising case: doctrinal drift?

43(B)log

Thus, for disgorgement of profits, a plaintiff need only show the defendant’s “sales of the allegedly falsely advertised products,” after which the burden shifts to the defendant to prove “any costs or deductions.” This contrasts to damages, which require proof of a causal link between plaintiff’s injury and defendant’s conduct.

article thumbnail

no disgorgement/fees in false advertising case even after Romag remand

43(B)log

Despite Romag , the court declines to award disgorgement or fees in this false advertising case. A jury found that Harbor Breeze proved all elements of liability for false advertising but awarded $0 in damages and profits. But here, evidence connecting false advertising to defendants’ profits was lacking. (Is

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

False advertising-based antitrust claims against Facebook survive motion to dismiss

43(B)log

14, 2022) Once in a blue moon, a false advertising-based antitrust claim survives a motion to dismiss in a circuit that imposes a list of excessive requirements on such claims. Consumers and advertisers adequately alleged that Facebook has monopoly power in social network/social media (consumers) and social advertising markets.

article thumbnail

Gerber's Good Start troubles continue

43(B)log

A]dvertisements that reframe critiques of a product as praise can constitute false advertising.” But “the requirement of extrinsic evidence to prove that implied assertions in ads are false is chiefly a requirement of Lanham Act false advertising claims — claims not present here.” (And

article thumbnail

Kentucky bourbon distilled in Indiana?

43(B)log

Fresh Bourbon allegedly falsely advertises that Fresh Bourbon is the “first black-owned bourbon distillery in Kentucky,” and makes other related false claims, which is allegedly false because it’s not a distillery, which requires both federal (TTB) and Kentucky (KABC) licenses. So this was like Pernod Ricard USA, LLC v.

article thumbnail

Top Trademark Trends of 2022

Erik K Pelton

On November 7 th , Conde Nast sued Drake and 21 Savage for $4 million for false advertising and infringing Vogue’s trademarks. 2011: [link]. The court issued a preliminary injunction and the duo agreed to no longer use Vogue’s marks in connection with the album. Metaverse and NFT Filings Decrease. 2020: [link]. 2019: [link].

Trademark 130
article thumbnail

Inter American Convention allows claims that Lanham Act makes dubious after Abitron; but what about Article III?

43(B)log

Zuluaga claimed first use of Zenú in 2011; the predecessor company applied to register the mark in 2013, with specimens using actual images of Industria’s products (though Zuluaga claimed lack of knowledge either of Industria or the specimens filed on its behalf by a filing service).