Remove 2024 Remove Contracts Remove False Advertising Remove Marketing
article thumbnail

Measuring device (c)able under Star Athletica; ignoring Dastar, court also allows false advertising claim

43(B)log

Kitchen Cube LLC, 2024 WL 1829620, No. 17, 2024) Leszczynski invented a measuring cube that combines various measuring volumes into a single cubical structure. Kitchen Cube cube Leszczynski sued for (1) copyright infringement; (2) violation of Creative Commons license terms; and (3) false advertising and misrepresentation.

article thumbnail

adult venue's insurer did not successfully exclude ads from ad injury coverage

43(B)log

2024 WL 1285631, C.A. 26, 2024) Defendant, d/b/a Wonderland, operated an adult entertainment club and was one of the many such sued by various models for using their images in advertising without their consent from 2015 to 2019. Defendants counterclaimed for payment and damages for breach of contract and bad faith.

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

Ninth Circuit Upholds “Sign-in-Wrap”–Keebaugh v. Warner Bros.

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This is a false advertising lawsuit again the mobile app game Game of Thrones: Conquest. April 26, 2024) The post Ninth Circuit Upholds “Sign-in-Wrap”–Keebaugh v. appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog. sought to send the case to arbitration. The district court disagreed. Warner Bros.

article thumbnail

“it appears difficult for a defendant, innocent or not, to defend himself in a claim for disgorgement of profits"

43(B)log

12-2999, 2024 WL 887785 (D.N.J. 29, 2024) Previously, after a bench trial, the court found Albion liable for falsely advertising its caulk dispensing guns as “Made in the USA.” Newborn Bros. Albion Engineering Co., Now it’s disgorgement time. could become even more important during this economy.”

article thumbnail

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2023

SpicyIP

The Court interpreted the clause on ownership of work made during a contract of service (Section 17(c)) to not apply in situations where there is a contract between equals. The Court limited the scope of Section 17(c) to apply to contracts where the relationship between the parties is akin to that of an apprenticeship.

IP 124