Remove 2021 Remove False Advertising Remove Litigation Remove Marketing
article thumbnail

Lexmark allows direct and contributory false advertising claims against certifier

43(B)log

19-62225-CIV-ALTMAN, 2021 WL 810279 (S.D. 3, 2021) Sometimes I worry that judicial writing is tending too much towards the flip as it moves away from prolixity, but this is a lovely example of how clear language can be deployed: If you want to build with plywood in the United States, you generally need a certification— called a PS 1-09 stamp.

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.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

District of Delaware Grants Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff Damages Expert’s Testimony in False Advertising Action under the Lanham Act

Delaware Intellectual Property Litigation Blog

May 7, 2021), the Court granted Natera’s motion to exclude at trial the opinions of CareDx’s damages expert relating to “corrective advertising damages.” CareDx’s Lanham Act claims were based on allegations that Natera falsely represented that Natera’s Prospera kidney transplant test is superior to CareDx’s Allosure Kidney test.

article thumbnail

Earnings calls, recall notices not "commercial advertising or promotion," but could be "of and concerning" largest market player

43(B)log

Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liab. SoClean is a dominant player in the market for medical devices that sanitize continuous positive airway pressure machines (CPAPs), which treat sleep apnea and respiratory conditions. And, they continued, SoClean was illegally marketing its devices. In re SoClean, Inc., 22-542 (W.D.

article thumbnail

Lanham Act willfulness satisfies Bankruptcy Act willful/malicious standard

43(B)log

11, 2021) A rare bankruptcy/false advertising interaction. Of relevance here, Everlog argued that the false advertising damages were nondischargeable in bankruptcy. BTL argued that summary judgment was inappropriate because the district court didn’t consider whether the false advertising was “malicious.”

article thumbnail

Is disgorgement the new normal in Lanham Act cases?

43(B)log

Clean & Sober Media, LLC, 2021 WL 3702243, No. Is that true for false advertising plaintiffs? Here, the parties compete in the market for addiction treatment. A jury found defendants liable for false advertising through a purportedly unbiased, independent site. Grasshopper House, LLC v. 19-56008, No.

article thumbnail

9th Circuit: desire to purchase properly labeled product is too abstract for injunctive relief standing

43(B)log

In re Coca-Cola Products Marketing & Sales Practices Litig. (No. II), 2021 WL 3878654, No. 31, 2021) The Ninth Circuit limits its injunctive relief standing jurisprudence in light of TransUnion. 20-15742 (9 th Cir. no preservatives added. no preservatives added.