Remove Advertising Remove False Advertising Remove Marketing Remove Ownership
article thumbnail

marketing may be material even to very expensive/complex business purchases

43(B)log

30, 2022) Pegasystems alleged that defendants, which compete with it in the business process management (BPM) software field, engaged in false advertising and commercial disparagement in an online report that portrayed Pegasystems unfavorably. Appian disseminated the report through its sales team, social media, and other marketing.

article thumbnail

copying/explicit references let Roblox proceed with dubious (c) claim; Lego should be watching

43(B)log

Defendants allegedly marketed the My Avastars dolls with a “code” that could be used in the Roblox platform. And Jazwares, Roblox’s licensee, lacked standing for copyright claims, but did have Lanham Act standing because that doesn’t require copyright or trademark ownership.

Copying 94
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

literal falsity of claim that website doesn't allow checkout in under a minute supports preliminary injunction

43(B)log

DealMaker alleged that defendants stole its trade secrets and also alleged violation of state and federal false advertising law. Challenged claim: DealMaker’s customers do not retain ownership over their own data. Defendant Marble is Issuance’s co-founder and chief executive officer.

article thumbnail

truthful statement about role in developing product isn't falsified by later split

43(B)log

Eventually, instead of monthly compensation, Von Berg offered Hawrych a 10% ownership interest in Nutra-Luxe, which worked for 16 years. into the company name, added the phrase ‘physician developed/formulated’ to the product descriptions, and used Dr. Hawrych’s name, likeness, and trademark (‘Hawrych MD’) in various advertisements.”

article thumbnail

TM co-owner can't challenge uses authorized by other co-owners (bonus Lexmark reasoning)

43(B)log

Reed objected, claiming to own “equal ownership and rights” to the Jade name and also claiming violation of her right of publicity. This is why co-ownership is disfavored in trademark—but co-ownership is not prohibited. This reasoning also disposed of contributory/vicarious infringement claims against Marshall and Harris. §43(a)

article thumbnail

LinkedIn posts weren't commercial advertising or promotion for pediatric orthopedics

43(B)log

They alleged that defendants copied the program and infringed the patent, as well as engaged in a smear campaign against plaintiffs in an effort to steal market share in the pediatric orthopedic industry. I’m only going to discuss the false advertising aspects. The answer depends on industry practice.

article thumbnail

Competitor has standing to bring false association claims for false association w/3d party

43(B)log

This court answers yes, though limits the effect of that by applying what looks like ordinary false advertising analysis. Through a licensing agreement, Hilti also markets and sells the Firestop Box Insert based in part on that same patent. And literally false statements presumptively cause competitors harm.”