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.

article thumbnail

False advertising about a bankrupt competitor doesn't violate the automatic stay

43(B)log

6, 2022) The district court reverses the bankruptcy court ruling ( discussed here ) that held that false advertising had interfered with the debtor’s estate in violation of the automatic stay. Windstream has a 2-year contract. With Spectrum there are no contracts. for the losses caused thereby.

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

Monster wins permanent injunction against VPX in false advertising case

43(B)log

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. But Defendants have brought on themselves these unfortunate consequences through their false advertising.”

article thumbnail

Contract remedies again prove broader than false advertising for pandemic-related suits

43(B)log

Thus, some but not all breach of contract claims survived. References in Columbia’s marketing materials to “the on-campus experience” were often mere puffery “too vague to be enforced as a contract,” such as a statement in a University publication that “Columbia is an in-person kind of place.” So too for similar Pace claims.

article thumbnail

handful of bad Amazon reviews make Energizer's false advertising claims plausible

43(B)log

16, 2021) Along with breach of contract and tortious interference claims, Energizer alleged that MTA falsely advertised by selling batteries with Energizer’s mark and then by fulfilling orders with products different from those advertised and shipping batteries to consumers that were “used, aged, or tampered-with.”

article thumbnail

TM claimant may add false advertising claims as direct competitor

43(B)log

Entrepreneur’s desire to bring forth a claim for false advertising against a competitor in a similar market is not unusual behavior.” Along with adding a defendant, Entrepreneur might eventually be allowed to add a false advertising claim, based on facts that were allegedly discovered only during Roach’s deposition.

article thumbnail

tortious interference claim from false advertising survives, but why bother?

43(B)log

AB allegedly began advertising for a similar product, claiming that its load bars have “30% more Holding Power than similar Disposable Load Bars,” allegedly an admitted reference to Logistick. As a direct competitor, it knew or should have known of these relationships when it engaged in comparative advertising referencing Logistick’s product.