Remove Advertising Remove False Advertising Remove Government 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. ” Dawgs brief.

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.

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

False patent marking claims survive even when Dastar bars false advertising claims based on "innovation"

43(B)log

30, 2024) (R&R) Recommendation: Dastar should block Qingdao’s Lanham Act false advertising counterclaims based on Lashify’s claim to be the originator of lash technology, but false patent marking counterclaims should survive. Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., 2024 WL 629985, No. W-22-CV-00776-ADA-DTG, No. 1, 2017 to Apr.

article thumbnail

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

43(B)log

The advertising bit: Defendants allegedly misled New York customers into “believing that unfinished frames and receivers are legal workarounds to New York’s gun control laws, as well as federal law.” Defendants contended that marketing unfinished frames and receivers as “legal” was protected by the First Amendment. It was not.

article thumbnail

Monster wins permanent injunction against VPX in false advertising case

43(B)log

12, 2023) Following a large verdict for Monster on false advertising claims, this opinion discusses extensively the requirements for injunctive relief in false advertising cases. Are lost prospective customers and market share purely economic harms? So too with lost market share.

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.’” Not all marketing of artistic works is noncommercial speech. The California Supreme Court reversed.

article thumbnail

Paul Mitchell plausibly not "cruelty free" because of entry into market requiring animal testing

43(B)log

2, 2023) A smoothly written opinion: As the complaint tells it, Paul Mitchell has long marketed its business and its products as “cruelty-free.” Although not all the purchased products appeared in the Chinese import registry, “in its marketing, Paul Mitchell doesn’t just advertise that it sells ‘cruelty-free’ goods.