43(B)log

NOVEMBER 1, 2022

The court, unfortunately, misapplies nominative fair use, reasoning that “[i]n this case, however, plaintiff alleges that defendants are using plaintiff’s trademark to refer to defendants’ goods or services. False advertising: Sufficiently pled, despite Shkipin’s argument that his reviews were not commercial speech.

False Advertising 59

False Advertising Fair Use Advertising Advertising 59

43(B)log

AUGUST 26, 2022

24, 2022) This seems like a silly result to me, shifting the burden to comparative advertisers, but it's often much harder to get summary judgment in a trademark case than in comparable cases. PennEngineering claims a PEM family of marks and sued Peninsula for trademark infringement, counterfeiting, false advertising, and unfair competition.

False Advertising 59

False Advertising Advertising Advertising Trademark 59

43(B)log

NOVEMBER 8, 2023

Malwarebytes, which allowed a false advertising claim to proceed based on one software provider’s use of the terms “malicious” and “threat” to describe its alleged competitor’s software, despite a dissent raising free speech arguments. Then I’ll talk about the 9 th Circuit case Enigma Software v.

False Advertising 75

False Advertising Advertising Advertising Trademark 75

43(B)log

SEPTEMBER 7, 2021

She allegedly falsely represented that she was authorized to deliver Londra’s “recording artist and songwriting services. Big Ligas sued for tortious interference and for false advertising and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. False advertising: “That Ms.

False Advertising 59

False Advertising Fair Use Advertising Advertising 59

The IPKat

MARCH 7, 2024

Setting aside copyright implications, the authors managed to succinctly encapsulate the entire issue of upcycling in the following 49 words: Under current IP rules, upcycling could constitute trademark infringement, trademark dilution, tarnishment, false advertising, and unfair competition.

Intellectual Property 57

Intellectual Property False Advertising Editing Settlement 57

SpicyIP

OCTOBER 27, 2023

Nagging refers to persistent, repetitive, and constant requests for action, such as the ‘sign-up’ or ‘subscribe now’ box repeatedly opening on an unrelated webpage during various access steps. YouTube also earns from advertisers by inserting video ads and allowing longer ads.

Intellectual Property 52

Intellectual Property False Advertising Designs Design 52

43(B)log

FEBRUARY 24, 2023

Every time a court uses Rogers, it’s covertly holding that it would be unconstitutional to apply a broader set of rights; we’re tailoring the test with this in mind. But the test doesn’t say 1A every time; you just use the test. Ramsey: do it w/broad fair use/general rules. We should stop referring to consumers.

Trademark 69

Trademark False Advertising Fair Use Branding 69

43(B)log

FEBRUARY 16, 2024

Static Controls in 2012, a Lanham Act false advertising case, the Court gave us two more principles for interpreting section 43: a statutory cause of action extends only to plaintiffs whose interests “fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.” None of those were branding uses. Then, in Lexmark v.

Trademark 59

Trademark Fair Use Registration False Advertising 59

43(B)log

AUGUST 3, 2023

Matthew Sag, Copyright Safety for Generative AI Not addressing whether training is always fair use in every circumstance; explain how generative AI fits w/in existing law (nonexpressive uses) and identify best practices to make generative AI fairer. Implications: too much memorization undermines arguments in favor of fair use.

Social Media 52

Social Media Fair Use Advertising Advertising 52

LexBlog IP

FEBRUARY 1, 2023

VIP Products, on the other hand, argued that their toy was protected under the doctrine of “fair use” as it was being used in a non-trademark sense, and that it was not likely to cause confusion among consumers. ” Id. In VIP Products v. Jack Daniels Products , 953 F.3d 3d 1170 , 1172 (9 th Cir.

Trademark 52

Trademark Intellectual Property Branding Brands 52

SpicyIP

DECEMBER 30, 2023

The Division Bench judgement was passed on October 13, in response to the reference made by a Single Judge Bench where the Court disagreed with the finding of the coordinate bench in Boehringer Ingelheim v. The judgement was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Manish Pitale. Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. Makemytrip (India) Pvt.

IP 124

IP Copyright Trademark Intellectual Property 124