Remove 2023 Remove Advertising Remove False Advertising Remove Marketing
article thumbnail

plaintiff has standing to seek injunctive relief against allegedly falsely advertised penile implant

43(B)log

2:22-cv-03391-SSS-PLAx, 2023 WL 5667568 (C.D. 17, 2023) Plaintiff brought the usual California statutory claims against Penuma, a penile implant/procedure, for alleged misstatements about Penuma’s safety and efficacy. International Medical Devices, Inc., Here, we deal only with the claims for injunctive relief.

article thumbnail

False advertising and TM infringement receive very different damages treatment: case in point

43(B)log

19-662-CFC, 2023 WL 4561059 (D. 17, 2023) Another entry in the “courts treat Lanham Act false advertising very differently than Lanham Act trademark infringement, despite identical damages provisions” line. CareDx sued Natera for false advertising. Natera, Inc., It also found that CareDx was entitled to $21.2

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

alleged misrepresentation of partnership/approval suffices for false advertising claim

43(B)log

2023 WL 8586681, No. 8, 2023) When does TM logic creep into false advertising cases? Tundra allegedly uses the information it scrapes from Faire’s platform, including contact information, to market its product. The screenshot was “commercial advertising or promotion.” Faire Wholesale, Inc. Tundra, Inc.,

article thumbnail

10th Circuit endorses presumption of Lanham Act false advertising injury in mostly two-player market

43(B)log

4th -, 2023 WL 4189604, Nos. 27, 2023) Proceedings below most recently blogged here. Vitamins Online sued Heartwise under the Lanham Act and Utah’s Unfair Competition Law for false advertising about the ingredients of its competitive nutritional supplements and manipulating those products’ Amazon reviews.

article thumbnail

Cy pres recipient in false advertising case has to be false-advertising-focused group, court rules

43(B)log

2023 WL 8811499, No. 20, 2023) The court denies settlement approval in this case alleging that Macy’s misrepresented the thread count in some of the sheets it sold, because it doesn’t like the cy pres part of the remedy. You might think that class action rules can be a bit like Calvinball, and I'd be hard pressed to disagree.

article thumbnail

False patent marking claims survive even when Dastar bars false advertising claims based on "innovation"

43(B)log

30, 2024) (R&R) Recommendation: Dastar should block Qingdao’s Lanham Act false advertising counterclaims based on Lashify’s claim to be the originator of lash technology, but false patent marking counterclaims should survive. 11, 2023 (claiming that various products were “patented”). 1, 2017 to Apr.

article thumbnail

Monster wins permanent injunction against VPX in false advertising case

43(B)log

2023 WL 2918724, No. 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. Are lost prospective customers and market share purely economic harms? So too with lost market share.