Remove Advertising Remove Copying Remove False Advertising Remove Television
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.

article thumbnail

California Supreme Court reaffirms strict liability for false advertising in Serova

43(B)log

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.’” The First Amendment has long coexisted with no-fault false advertising laws. The California Supreme Court reversed.

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

Second Circuit signals some minimal flexibility on Polaroid analysis in another strip club false endorsement case

43(B)log

May 19, 2023) Whereas the timeshare false advertising cases might be making law largely applicable to other timeshare cases, what’s going on in the strip club advertising cases might have somewhat broader implications. The district court concluded that plaintiffs’ false endorsement claims were foreclosed by Electra v.

article thumbnail

Models' false endorsement claims fail for want of recognition, bad survey

43(B)log

Plaintiffs sued for false advertising and false endorsement under the Lanham Act, violation of their right to publicity, deceptive trade practices under New York GBL Section 349, and defamation. 2021), which considered all these claims except for false advertising. The court was guided by Electra v. 3d 233 (2d Cir.

article thumbnail

11th Circuit affirms Viacom's Rogers-based win for MTV Floribama Shore

43(B)log

Chesney also performed on the Lounge’s beachfront stage at a 2014 concert broadcast as “Kenny Chesney: Live at the Flora-Bama” on Country Music Television (CMT), a Viacom channel. Deliberate copying was irrelevant. The agreement granting CMT a license to broadcast that program does not mention Plaintiffs. Yet both artists won.”

article thumbnail

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2023

SpicyIP

Relying extensively on the rationale of the Single Judge’s order, the Division Bench held that Section 31D specifically deals only with Radio and Television Broadcasting. Previously, a rate of 2% of the Net Advertisement Revenue (NAR) of the earnings of each FM Radio station was fixed for all music providers by the Copyright Board.

IP 124