Remove Advertising Remove Designs Remove False Advertising Remove Marketing
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

False advertising and TM infringement receive very different damages treatment: case in point

43(B)log

17, 2023) Another entry in the “courts treat Lanham Act false advertising very differently than Lanham Act trademark infringement, despite identical damages provisions” line. CareDx sued Natera for false advertising. Natera, Inc., 19-662-CFC, 2023 WL 4561059 (D. Natera made superiority claims for its Prospera.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Retailer has standing to assert Lanham Act false advertising claims against its own supplier

43(B)log

In summer 2020, AHBP began negotiating with the Lynd defendants for the exclusive license to market and sell a surface disinfectant/cleaner known as “Bioprotect 500” in Argentina. Lynd advertised the Product as effective against the coronavirus. the Lanham Act false advertising claim survived.

article thumbnail

Section 230 Helps Amazon Defeat False Advertising Lawsuit Over Printer Ink Cartridges–Planet Green v. Amazon

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Amazon is an ICS provider: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “market” and “sell” products to retail consumers “through internet websites.” The plaintiff claimed that Amazon bears the responsibility to verify advertiser claims and product authenticity. This argument has failed so many times.

article thumbnail

Falsely advertising "ghost guns" as legal in NY is actionable

43(B)log

23, 2024) The AG sued sellers of “unfinished frames and receivers” — also known as “80% lowers” or “receiver blanks” —designed to evade restrictions on gun sales. Defendants contended that marketing unfinished frames and receivers as “legal” was protected by the First Amendment. Arm or Ally, LLC, 2024 WL 756474, No. It was not.

article thumbnail

An Antitrust Framework for False Advertising, out now

43(B)log

Carrier & Rebecca Tushnet, An Antitrust Framework for False Advertising , 106 Iowa L. 1841 (2021) From the introduction: Federal law presumes that false advertising harms competition. Federal law also presumes that false advertising is harmless or even helpful to competition. This makes no sense.

article thumbnail

falsely advertising "proprietary" and "exclusive" material isn't actionable under Dastar

43(B)log

14, 2021) Dawgs alleged that Crocs falsely marketed its shoes in violation of the Lanham Act by advertising Croslite, the foam material that Crocs shoes are made from, as “patented,” “proprietary,” and “exclusive.” Effervescent, Inc., 2021 WL 4170997, No. 06-cv-00605-PAB-KMT, No. 16-cv-02004-PAB-KMT (D.