Remove Advertising Remove Contracts Remove False Advertising Remove Ownership
article thumbnail

copying/explicit references let Roblox proceed with dubious (c) claim; Lego should be watching

43(B)log

Roblox sued for copyright infringement, false advertising, trademark infringement, false association and false designation of origin, trade dress infringement, intentional interference with contractual relations, breach of contract, and false advertising and unfair competition under California law.

Copying 94
article thumbnail

Alleging sponsorship/endorsement confusion can't defeat clear nominative fair use

43(B)log

It does so at the Rose Bowl Stadium under three contracts with Pasadena, including a Master License Agreement, Trademark Agreement, and Trademark Consent Agreement. There was no controversy as to whether Pasadena had an “ownership” interest in the relevant trademarks.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

crypto lender plausibly violated UCL via unlawfulness and deceptiveness

43(B)log

The false advertising parts: Jeong alleged that Nexo advertised to consumers that it does not own users’ collateral (e.g., Clients retain 100% ownership of their digital assets. while acting otherwise—eventually invoking its ownership right over users’ collateral to justify liquidation of that collateral (e.g.

article thumbnail

Clone wars: truthful statements about cloned horses don't constitute false association

43(B)log

This case concerns major players in the world of professional polo, their efforts to produce and clone genetically superior horses, and the ownership disputes that have arisen from those efforts.” Allegedly, these statements, plus the use of the horses’ names as given by La Dolfina, constituted false advertising and false association.

article thumbnail

literal falsity of claim that website doesn't allow checkout in under a minute supports preliminary injunction

43(B)log

DealMaker alleged that defendants stole its trade secrets and also alleged violation of state and federal false advertising law. Challenged claim: DealMaker’s customers do not retain ownership over their own data. Defendants offered examples of contracts that, they argued, had a fee structure of 8-10%.

article thumbnail

selling allegedly stolen/converted merchandise isn't reverse passing off

43(B)log

False advertising: Plaintiffs didn’t allege that Nobelle altered the merchandise in any way; “instead, the false statement arises from implication, from the fact that Nobelle is selling products that are not theirs to sell and, in the case of ‘The Line’ items, products it does not have the authority to sell.”

article thumbnail

timeshare exit ads could proximately cause harm even w/o telling people to stop paying

43(B)log

Defendants NGT and NGE advertised an ability to help customers terminate their timeshare contract or ownership; other defendants were part of the exit process. The advertising attempted to target timeshare owners (the target lists for mailers weren’t always accurate). One defendant was a law firm. Restrictions will apply.