Remove Advertising Remove Brands Remove False Advertising Remove Litigation
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. However, the Noerr-Pennington doctrine didn’t apply to this case at this stage of the litigation.

article thumbnail

Section 230 Helps Amazon Defeat False Advertising Lawsuit Over Printer Ink Cartridges–Planet Green v. Amazon

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

However, with scant followup media attention, this lawsuit (filed in August, dismissed in December) rocket-docketed to failure faster than remanufactured printer cartridges run out of ink. * * * Note: The litigation GoFundMe page is still up. They have raised a total of $150 of their $500k goal. This argument has failed so many times.

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

patent misrepresentations to prospective dealer could be false advertising under Dastar/Lexmark

43(B)log

Shingle Savers counterclaimed, alleging, among other things, false advertising under the Lanham Act and violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Lanham Act/ODTPA claims: First, the court declined to hold that Rule 9(b) applied to Lanham Act false advertising claims, which don’t require fraud.

article thumbnail

Chanel’s Win in Trademark Infringement Case is a Lesson for Resellers

IP Watchdog

Fashion is a brand-driven industry, and few brands in the fashion space carry the same cachet as Chanel. But how much control do brands like Chanel have over merchants who resell name-brand items in the secondary market? The answer, according to a federal jury in the Southern District of New York, is “Quite a bit.”

article thumbnail

WIPIP session 4: ™ & Consumers

43(B)log

Mary Katherine Amerine, Reasonably Careless Consumers in TM & False Advertising How do courts treat consumers in TM and false advertising cases? False advertising uses v different framework: consider the challenged ad as a whole, including disclaimers and qualifying language. Beer Nuts, Bulls’ Eye v.

article thumbnail

When Do Inbound Call Logs Show Consumer Confusion?–Adler v McNeil

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This case involves Jim Adler, a/k/a the “Texas Hammer,” a Texas lawyer who has spent $100M+ on advertising to build his brand. For background on the legal battles over keyword advertising by lawyers, see this article. Bye, Goff * Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v.

article thumbnail

Internal Search Results Aren’t Trademark Infringing–PEM v. Peninsula

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This is a case involving a trademark owner and a competitive keyword advertiser. That’s certainly true for high-profile and well-advertised consumer items like fast food chains, mass-market phones, and major car labels, but is it true in this particular niche? Google * Competitive Keyword Advertising Claim Fails–Reflex Media v.