Remove 2016 Remove Advertising Remove False Advertising Remove Marketing
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 § 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

Cy pres recipient in false advertising case has to be false-advertising-focused group, court rules

43(B)log

As far as the Court can tell, … PIRG does no work addressing false or misleading labeling for bed sheets, textiles more generally, or even false advertising as a category. So what was the problem? The cy pres doctrine simply allows for a distribution that achieves those benefits indirectly.”

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

10th circuit won't presume false advertising harm just from direct competition

43(B)log

InterNACHI argued that ASHI’s tagline constituted Lanham Act false advertising because it portrays ASHI’s entire membership as being educated, tested, verified, and certified, even though its membership includes so-called “novice” inspectors who have yet to complete training or become certified.

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 underlying permanent injunction barred defendants from suggesting in promotional materials that their probiotic contained the same formulation as one marketed by De Simone. and many markets globally.” “So

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

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

43(B)log

I’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 “commercial advertising or promotion” requirement for Lanham Act false advertising. The false association/coordinate state law claims survived.