Remove 2022 Remove Advertising Remove False Advertising Remove Trademark Law
article thumbnail

Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute False Advertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet v. Troia

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Also, there should not be a “use in commerce” when the advertiser (here, Troia) doesn’t actually offer any goods or services in the marketplace. Instead, the court’s hacking of precedent brought to mind one of my all-time least-favorite trademark cases (it still annoys me 15+ years later!) 2022 WL 3647817 (E.D.

article thumbnail

dissatisfaction w/Amazon's partner program isn't TM infringement/false advertising

43(B)log

2022 WL 670919, NO. 7, 2022) Melwani owns the Royal Silk trademark for “a wide variety of products.” T]he URL merely shows how the website’s data is organized and/or the search term entered by the consumer, and … this does not violate trademark law.” False designation of origin/false advertising: Lasoff v.

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

The year saw many trademark stories in the news as backlogs continued at the USPTO even while application filing numbers dropped from their all time highs during the two previous years. Here are the biggest trademark stories of 2022 that we have been following at EMP&A. Trademark Scams. © 2022 Erik M.

Trademark 130
article thumbnail

Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. Allied Modular

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

To many trademark owners, it’s a simple decision to sue when the advertiser includes the trademark in the ad copy. 2022 WL 4596646 (C.D. July 24, 2022). More Posts About Keyword Advertising. Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute False Advertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet The CourtListener page.

article thumbnail

influencers aren't advertisers' agents, materiality can be common sense, & more in supplement case

43(B)log

11, 2022) This is the main liability opinion. Was this commercial advertising or promotion? Elysium argued that the website as a whole was a referral website for Tru Niagen, which advertised Tru Niagen at the top of every page. Thus, any false advertising claim would lie against Albaum, not [directly] against ChromaDex.

article thumbnail

Georgia Supreme Court Blesses Google’s Keyword Ad Sales–Edible IP v. Google

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

.” In other words, they sought to establish (using centuries-old chattel-based theft doctrines rather than trademark law) that a trademark owner has the unrestricted right to shut down anyone using their trademarks, even if no consumers are harmed. to see if it could find some soft spot in Georgia state law.

IP 127
article thumbnail

truthful statement about role in developing product isn't falsified by later split

43(B)log

2:21-cv-830-SPC-MRM, 2022 WL 1187136 (M.D. 21, 2022) “Nearly twenty years ago, Plaintiff Dr. Andrew Hawrych, a plastic surgeon, and Defendant Peter Von Berg, a businessman operating a cosmetics and skin care company, formed an oral agreement to develop new cosmetic products.” Thus, the false advertising claim would be dismissed.