Remove 2019 Remove Advertising Remove Fair Use Remove False Advertising
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

"TM-compliant" ads not shown to be nominative fair use

43(B)log

First, nominative fair use permits only the “truthful use of a mark.” Use of the mark with the words “compliant,” “legal,” and “meets. Toyota, 610 F.3d 3d at 1177. Defendants contended that one axe “meet[s] WATL Regulations” and that another “meets WATL Regulations with a slight modification that is commonly made.”

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

Top Trademark Trends of 2022

Erik K Pelton

which will determine the scope of the Lanham Act as applied to trademark infringement that occurs outside the US. The Court has also agreed to hear a patent case this term, and it will rule on a copyright fair-use case brought by the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts that was heard this fall. 2019: [link].

Trademark 130
article thumbnail

Dark Patterns Unmasked: Examining Their Influence on Digital Platforms and User Behaviour

SpicyIP

Interface interference is a tactic that hinders consumers from performing actions like cancelling subscriptions or deleting accounts, such as redirecting them to another page while trying to cancel a pop-up advertisement. This violates copyright laws and may lead to legal actions for copyright infringement.

article thumbnail

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2023

SpicyIP

However, in case such a use does amount to an infringement, the Court clarified that Google, the concerned platform here, will be held accountable and will not be able to claim protection as an intermediary under Section 79 of the IT Act since it effectively sells these marks to the advertisers. Makemytrip (India) Pvt.

IP 124