Remove 2021 Remove Brands Remove False Advertising Remove Litigation
article thumbnail

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

43(B)log

Holsinger, 2021 WL 3617153, No. 16, 2021) Roof Maxx distributes “a soy-based liquid product that is sprayed on asphalt shingle roofs to extend the life of the shingles.” Shingle Savers counterclaimed, alleging, among other things, false advertising under the Lanham Act and violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

article thumbnail

Local Medical Supply Store Sued for Selling Counterfeit Products

Indiana Intellectual Property Law

for trademark infringement, false advertising and patent infringement. The Indiana Secretary of State indicates that the corporation was created in 2021. The complaint alleges that JV Medical Supplies advertised, promoted, marketed and sold counterfeit products that included use of the BTL’s EMSCULPT trademark.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

political speech isn't covered by Lanham Act but is protected by Cal anti-SLAPP law

43(B)log

4, 2022) Mosafer, a travel business that “aligns its branding with the State of Qatar,” sued several defendants for making public statements allegedly disparaging the State of Qatar and harming the Mosafer parties’ brand, which is closely aligned with the country. protects the speech of non-citizens as well as speech abroad.”

Law 59
article thumbnail

As Expected, Malwarebytes Defeats Enigma’s Lawsuit Without Section 230’s Help

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

” On remand, after 2 more years of litigation, the district court has again dismissed the lawsuit, this time on its lack of merits. Lanham Act False Advertising. Enigma claimed it was false for Malwarebytes to call its programs “malicious,” “threats,” and PUPs. Internet Brands. In Asurvio v. Blog post.

Blogging 119
article thumbnail

When Do Inbound Call Logs Show Consumer Confusion?–Adler v McNeil

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This case involves Jim Adler, a/k/a the “Texas Hammer,” a Texas lawyer who has spent $100M+ on advertising to build his brand. Bye, Goff * Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. Allied Modular * Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute False Advertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet

article thumbnail

Models' false endorsement claims fail for want of recognition, bad survey

43(B)log

18-CV-9448 (KMK), 2021 WL 3501162 (S.D.N.Y. 9, 2021) Another in the burgeoning genre of models suing “adult” clubs for using unauthorized images in online ads for the clubs. 2021), which considered all these claims except for false advertising. Exotic Island Enterprises, Inc., The court was guided by Electra v.

article thumbnail

Fifth Circuit Says Keyword Ads Could Contribute to Initial Interest Confusion (UGH)–Adler v. McNeil

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

It’s 2021 FFS. The court summarizes the applicable legal standard: We agree with Southwest Recreational, the Ninth Circuit opinions, and the treatise author [McCarthy] that in the context of internet searches and search-engine advertising in particular, the critical issue is whether there is consumer confusion. Adler, P.C.