article thumbnail

Court rejects "buy button" false advertising claim because consumer hasn't yet lost access to "purchased" content

43(B)log

15, 2021) Disagreeing with a case against Apple , the court here concludes that Amazon’s “buy” option that doesn’t give consumers ownership does not harm consumers who haven’t (yet) lost access to the content, rejecting the price premium theory for reasons that don’t make much sense to me. Amazon.com, 2021 WL 4819602, No.

article thumbnail

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

43(B)log

Roblox sued for copyright infringement, false advertising, trademark infringement, false association and false designation of origin, trade dress infringement, intentional interference with contractual relations, breach of contract, and false advertising and unfair competition under California law.

Copying 94
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

crypto lender plausibly violated UCL via unlawfulness and deceptiveness

43(B)log

The false advertising parts: Jeong alleged that Nexo advertised to consumers that it does not own users’ collateral (e.g., Clients retain 100% ownership of their digital assets. while acting otherwise—eventually invoking its ownership right over users’ collateral to justify liquidation of that collateral (e.g.

article thumbnail

Alleging sponsorship/endorsement confusion can't defeat clear nominative fair use

43(B)log

There was no controversy as to whether Pasadena had an “ownership” interest in the relevant trademarks. False advertising: Pasadena’s mayor allegedly gave an interview to the New York Times and stated that “the city [ ] shares a trademark on the name of the game with the Tournament of Roses Assocation [.]”

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

I’m only going to discuss the false advertising aspects. There is an ongoing, separate litigation about ownership of the relevant patent; plaintiffs alleged that the two inventors assigned the patent to plaintiff Orthex. Lanham Act claim: Were these alleged statements commercial advertising or promotion?

article thumbnail

Clone wars: truthful statements about cloned horses don't constitute false association

43(B)log

This case concerns major players in the world of professional polo, their efforts to produce and clone genetically superior horses, and the ownership disputes that have arisen from those efforts.” Allegedly, these statements, plus the use of the horses’ names as given by La Dolfina, constituted false advertising and false association.