43(B)log
JANUARY 19, 2022
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.
43(B)log
MARCH 18, 2022
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. POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.,
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
43(B)log
MARCH 29, 2024
Further, internal communications showed that Gerber actively endeavored to make an allergy claim with these ads: Gerber asked its advertisers in a “communications brief” to “[c]reate a strong link between GSG. Gerber’s marketing team described “being challenged to find ways to push the envelope with bringing the allergy message forward.”
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
AUGUST 30, 2023
This is fine, but it deviates from courts’ efforts over the years to come up with multi-factor variations specific to keyword advertising. For example, 9th Circuit courts used the “Internet trinity” factors in the 2000s, and then switched in 2011 to a unique four-factor test from the Network Automation. LoanStreet v.
43(B)log
JULY 3, 2023
But Industria does not advertise or sell its Zenú or Ranchera products in the United States and there are no market surveys specific to the United States for Zenú or Ranchera. In light of the size of the food market, that’s a bit hard to credit. So, did Industria satisfy Lexmark ?
IP and Legal Filings
MARCH 14, 2022
The Court, after assessing the matter, partially denied RealReal’s motion to dismiss the First Amended complaint, as it was found that 1) Chanel’s allegation that RealReal marketed and sold counterfeit Chanel products was adequate; 2) RealReal’s advertising regarding the authenticity of the products it sells was false.
IP and Legal Filings
MARCH 14, 2022
The Court, after assessing the matter, partially denied RealReal’s motion to dismiss the First Amended complaint, as it was found that: 1) Chanel’s allegation that RealReal marketed and sold counterfeit Chanel products was adequate; 2) RealReal’s advertising regarding the authenticity of the products it sells was false.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
59 
Let's personalize your content