Remove Advertising Remove Brands Remove False Advertising Remove Settlement
article thumbnail

California Supreme Court reaffirms strict liability for false advertising in Serova

43(B)log

18, 2022) Not bound by Article III, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling despite the parties’ settlement. The statements were “commercial advertising meant to sell a product, and generally there ‘can be no constitutional objection to the suppression of commercial messages that do not accurately inform the public.’”

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.

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

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.

article thumbnail

Georgia Supreme Court Blesses Google’s Keyword Ad Sales–Edible IP v. Google

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The court says that trademark law: permits the use of trade names as long as referencing other brand names does not confuse consumers and is not deceptive. More Posts About Keyword Advertising. Competitive Keyword Advertising Claim Fails–Reflex Media v. However, Edible invoked theft law and disavowed consumer confusion.

IP 126
article thumbnail

Court Dismisses Trademark Claims Over Internal Search Results–Las Vegas Skydiving v. Groupon

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Las Vegas Skydiving Adventures offers tandem skydiving under the “Fyrosity” brand. Melwani sells products under the “Royal Silk” brand. ” The false designation of origin claim is similarly governed by the Ninth Circuit’s Lasoff v. More Posts About Keyword Advertising. BONUS: Melwani v.

article thumbnail

Google’s Search Disambiguation Doesn’t Create Initial Interest Confusion–Aliign v. lululemon

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

lululemon’s brand also displays prominently in its keyword ads. More Posts About Keyword Advertising. Ohio Bans Competitive Keyword Advertising by Lawyers. Perfect Body Image. * The Florida Bar Regulates, But Doesn’t Ban, Competitive Keyword Ads. * Rounding Up Three Recent Keyword Advertising Cases–Comphy v.

article thumbnail

Fifth Circuit Says Keyword Ads Could Contribute to Initial Interest Confusion (UGH)–Adler v. McNeil

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

However, “[b]ecause meta tags direct internet traffic and are invisible to the internet user (absent the user taking additional steps), meta tags are similar to keyword advertising” (citing a non-precedential metatags opinion from 20 years ago). More Posts About Keyword Advertising. Distraction is insufficient. OK, I guess.