Remove Advertising Remove Copyright Remove False Advertising Remove Service Mark
article thumbnail

copying competitor's website & reviews creates (c), TM, false advertising problems

43(B)log

Boston Suburban allegedly continued to use the “Logan Car Servicemark in online keyword advertising and in metatags, and continued to copy customer reviews from Boston Carriage’s website and publish them on online review platforms.

article thumbnail

TM infringement and false advertising claims related to putative open source software "fork" succeed

43(B)log

The parties previously partnered nonexclusively so that PureThink would sell and support the commercial version of Neo4j; upon termination, PureThink expressly agreed to “cease using any trademarks, service marks and other designations of Plaintiffs.” Summary judgment granted on state and federal false advertising claims.

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

Advertising injury coverage may exist even when gravamen of underlying complaint is TM

43(B)log

5, 2022) The court finds that, contrary to the district court’s holding, at least some of the underlying lawsuit’s allegations claimed that Vitamin Energy made disparaging statements about 5-hour Energy, thus triggering the insurer’s duty to defend under its “advertising injury” policy.

article thumbnail

Dastar doesn't bar allegedly false advertising about source of planned development services

43(B)log

Defendants' letter allegedly copied text from LStar Trademark infringement: LStar never specified what its trademarks or service marks were. Not every word on a label or ad is a mark. This was unambiguous and literally false, and likely material given its centrality. Vining, 2021 WL 4344891, No. 5:20-CV-184-FL (E.D.N.C.