article thumbnail

Retailer has standing to assert Lanham Act false advertising claims against its own supplier

43(B)log

Lynd advertised the Product as effective against the coronavirus. Ultimately, AHBP took an exclusive license to sell the product in Argentina, with purchasing and advertising/marketing spend minimums. the Lanham Act false advertising claim survived.

article thumbnail

Tiktok's other, smaller legal problem

43(B)log

2015) “in this circuit, a reverse passing off claim requires the alteration of a product and a subsequent sale.” False advertising: Meishe pointed to statements defendants made in their copyright notice at tiktok.com, in the ByteDance Code of Conduct, in TikTok’s Intellectual Property Policy, and in TikTok’s terms of service.

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

dissatisfaction w/Amazon's partner program isn't TM infringement/false advertising

43(B)log

False designation of origin/false advertising: Lasoff v. And it dismissed false advertising claims as “duplicative of his infringement claim.” But the false designation of origin claim wasn’t dismissed because the court didn’t think Amazon addressed it (I don’t see why—how could it differ from trademark infringement here?).

article thumbnail

TTAB Reverses Functionality Refusal of Rocking Chair Design But Finds Acquired Distinctiveness Lacking

The TTABlog

Applying the Morton-Norwich factors, and giving some weight to applicant's design patents, the Board concluded that the USPTO failed to make a prima facie case of functionality. There were no utility patents of record, nor any evidence showing that JBL touted any utilitarian advantages of this product design.

Designs 52
article thumbnail

Copyright case law of the German Bundesgerichtshof 2015 – 2019 – Part 2 of 4: Exploitation rights

Kluwer Copyright Blog

Part 1 of this post (originally published in “Auteurs & Media”) summarising case law of the German Bundesgerichtshof from 2015 to 2019 is available here , and parts 3 and 4 will be published on the blog over the coming days. . A decision in 2015 concerned the definition of “public” in the act of communication.

Law 52
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

two opinions send "false advertising of certification mark" claim to jury

43(B)log

The plaintiffs alleged that the stamps themselves were “a powerful form of advertising because they allow the Brazilian plywood companies to market their products as conforming to an important American safety standard.” pictures of not-good plywood from case Plaintiffs alleged both direct and contributory false advertising.