43(B)log

APRIL 18, 2023

12, 2023) Following a large verdict for Monster on false advertising claims, this opinion discusses extensively the requirements for injunctive relief in false advertising cases. But Defendants have brought on themselves these unfortunate consequences through their false advertising.”

False Advertising 72

False Advertising Advertising Advertising Social Media 72

43(B)log

OCTOBER 12, 2022

Meeker, 2022 WL 6507718, NO. 19, 2022) Judge Cannon has done some other stuff, too. Litigation ensued, with lots of claims, including the Lanham Act claims on which I will focus, though breach of contract claims were prominent and survived a motion to dismiss. La Dolfina S.A., 20-82231-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart (S.D.

False Advertising 59

False Advertising Advertising Advertising Ownership 59

The IPKat

JUNE 27, 2022

On 24 June 2022, BAYC sued Ryder Ripps, a conceptual artist and NFT creator for trade mark infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, cybersquatting and other cause of actions before the Central District of California. This is a U.S NFTs – still subject to “old” IP law An NFT is a non-fungible (i.e.

Non-Fungible Tokens 135

Non-Fungible Tokens Contracts Copying Art 135

43(B)log

JUNE 22, 2022

2022 WL 2205263, -- F. 22, 2022) Held: A warranty is not “commercial advertising or promotion” under the Lanham Act. Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract under Tennessee common law and false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act. (OK, Plateau Casualty Ins. Securranty, Inc., 3d --, No.

Advertising 72

Advertising Advertising False Advertising Contracts 72

43(B)log

DECEMBER 16, 2022

Roup, 2022 WL 17670418, No. 12, 2022) Plaintiffs sued defendants for copyright infringement, violation of the Lanham Act, breach of contract, and violation of unfair competition law; copyright and breach of contract claims survived a motion to dismiss but the others didn’t. Breach of contract claims survived.

Marketing 59

Marketing Marketing False Advertising Contracts 59

43(B)log

NOVEMBER 28, 2022

2022 WL 17218077, No. 2, 2022) Before the jury verdict in favor of Monster’s false advertising claim was this opinion resolving evidentiary issues. However, they fail to show that Monster dirtied its hands to make the false advertising claims now alleged against Defendants.” Monster Energy Co.

False Advertising 59

False Advertising Advertising Advertising Social Media 59

43(B)log

FEBRUARY 19, 2022

Businesses harm consumers only in a few ways—false advertising, monopoly prices, defective products. If something isn’t protected by IP, it’s free for copying. We like copying! Confusion is what we try to avoid, not copying. Amazon may also be able to redefine information by contract. What’s really bad here?

Law 119

Law Branding Brands Branding 119