article thumbnail

False Patent Marking as False Advertising: Overcoming Dastar

Patently-O

Dawgs’ (“Dawgs”) counterclaim for false advertising under the Lanham Act. In 2016, Dawgs added new asserted counterclaims against Crocs, including a claim for false advertising under the Lanham Act. Crocs largely prevailed in those actions. See Zenith Elecs. Exzec, Inc. , 3d 1340 (Fed.

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 jury “awarded ExeGi $15 million in damages after Alfasigma falsely advertised VSL#3 by referencing studies done on the De Simone Formulation,” and the district court found an intent to cause confusion. 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 don’t require fraud.

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.

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

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.”