article thumbnail

False Patent Marking as False Advertising: Overcoming Dastar

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch The Federal Circuit is set to consider the use of terms like “patented,” “proprietary,” and “exclusive” in commercial advertising can be actionable under § 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act when their use is not entirely accurate. Crocs largely prevailed in those actions. ” Dawgs brief.

article thumbnail

Unearthing the Truth: How Ambiguity Excavated a Win in False Advertising Claim

JD Supra Law

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit was tasked with excavating the truth behind claims of false advertising and copyright infringement. In a case that pitted two sellers of construction equipment against each other — I Dig Texas, LLC v. Creager — the U.S.

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

Examining the Circuit Split on Preliminary Injunctions in False Advertising Post-eBay

IP Watchdog

In responding to the unprecedented COVID-19 challenges, companies around the world are rushing to capitalize on the current crisis by advertising the effectiveness of their products in containing the virus spread. As fear and anxiety proliferate during this pandemic, fraudulent or false advertisements also surge and explode.

article thumbnail

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

43(B)log

The Ninth Circuit has held: “[i]n some cases, the threat of future harm may be the consumer’s plausible allegations that she will be unable to rely on the product’s advertising or labeling in the future, and so will not purchase the product although she would like to.”

article thumbnail

alleged misrepresentation of partnership/approval suffices for false advertising claim

43(B)log

8, 2023) When does TM logic creep into false advertising cases? The screenshot was “commercial advertising or promotion.” On materiality, it sufficed to allege that brands pay for its services and Tundra’s false advertising influences brands to purchase Tundra’s services instead of Faire’s services. Tundra, Inc.,

article thumbnail

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

43(B)log

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., 19-662-CFC, 2023 WL 4561059 (D. Natera made superiority claims for its Prospera.

article thumbnail

Retailer has standing to assert Lanham Act false advertising claims against its own supplier

43(B)log

Lynd advertised the Product as effective against the coronavirus. Ultimately, AHBP took an exclusive license to sell the product in Argentina, with purchasing and advertising/marketing spend minimums. the Lanham Act false advertising claim survived. And proximate cause?