article thumbnail

False Patent Marking as False Advertising: Overcoming Dastar

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch The Federal Circuit is set to consider the use of terms like “patented,” “proprietary,” and “exclusive” in commercial advertising can be actionable under ยง 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act when their use is not entirely accurate. Crocs largely prevailed in those actions. ” Dawgs brief.

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.

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

4th Circuit upholds contempt ruling in false advertising case: scrub your website and FB account!

43(B)log

7, 2022) The court upheld a contempt finding based on an underlying false advertising claim. The injunction didnโ€™t define the term, but since it was based on a Lanham Act violation, โ€œcommercial advertising or promotionโ€ was the proper guidepost. Anyway, that was โ€œcommercial advertising or promotion.โ€ De Simone v.

article thumbnail

patent misrepresentations to prospective dealer could be false advertising under Dastar/Lexmark

43(B)log

Shingle Savers counterclaimed, alleging, among other things, false advertising under the Lanham Act and violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Lanham Act/ODTPA claims: First, the court declined to hold that Rule 9(b) applied to Lanham Act false advertising claims, which donโ€™t require fraud.

article thumbnail

sending emails under former employees' names may be reverse passing off

43(B)log

Iโ€™m only going to discuss the false association/false advertising bits; as to the latter, state law provides more protection than federal because of the โ€œcommercial advertising or promotionโ€ requirement for Lanham Act false advertising. The false association/coordinate state law claims survived.

article thumbnail

over dissent, 6th Circuit holds that large player in fragmented market could show proximate cause under Lexmark

43(B)log

Ultra Bond alleged that Safelite violated the Lanham Act by falsely advertising that windshield cracks longer than six inches could not be safely repaired and instead required replacement of the entire windshield. Safelite is the VGRR market leader: in 2016, it had 35.4% of the market; its closest competitor had just 3%.

article thumbnail

adult venue's insurer did not successfully exclude ads from ad injury coverage

43(B)log

26, 2024) Defendant, d/b/a Wonderland, operated an adult entertainment club and was one of the many such sued by various models for using their images in advertising without their consent from 2015 to 2019. The consent judgment was a lump sum and, Princeton argued, included uncovered claims; most of the images fell within the 2017-18 period.