Remove Brands Remove Confidentiality Remove False Advertising Remove Marketing
article thumbnail

hashtags are plausibly infringing; sales claims plausibly false based on P's own history of sales

43(B)log

Purlife Brands, Inc., 21, 2023) In two opinions on the same day, the court dealt with various IP/false advertising claims brought by one litter box seller against another. Plaintiff (dba Whisker) sued defendant (dba Smarty Pear), its competitor in the market for automated, self-cleaning litter boxes. Purlife Brands, Inc.,

article thumbnail

When Do Inbound Call Logs Show Consumer Confusion?–Adler v McNeil

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This case involves Jim Adler, a/k/a the “Texas Hammer,” a Texas lawyer who has spent $100M+ on advertising to build his brand. Bye, Goff * Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. Allied Modular * Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute False Advertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet

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

Internal Search Results Aren’t Trademark Infringing–PEM v. Peninsula

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

That’s certainly true for high-profile and well-advertised consumer items like fast food chains, mass-market phones, and major car labels, but is it true in this particular niche? Bye, Goff * Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. LoanStreet v. Reyes & Adler v.

article thumbnail

Google’s Search Disambiguation Doesn’t Create Initial Interest Confusion–Aliign v. lululemon

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

lululemon’s brand also displays prominently in its keyword ads. If they really wanted to build their business, they could have invested that money into marketing instead of legal fees. Consistent with that, Aliign is spending more marketing dollars to appeal this lawsuit to the Ninth Circuit. Labeled search results.

article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 10- April 16)

SpicyIP

The court held that since it does not have the statistical data regarding market presence of other pharmaceutical compounds, the brand names that ends with “Dex” and when one removes from the cited examples the products containing dexamethasone and dextromethorphan, the remaining examples cannot make out a case u/s 17(2).

article thumbnail

Georgia Supreme Court Blesses Google’s Keyword Ad Sales–Edible IP v. Google

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The court says that trademark law: permits the use of trade names as long as referencing other brand names does not confuse consumers and is not deceptive. FTC. * New Jersey Attorney Ethics Opinion Blesses Competitive Keyword Advertising (…or Does It?). . * Duplicitous Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuits–Fareportal v.

IP 127
article thumbnail

Fifth Circuit Says Keyword Ads Could Contribute to Initial Interest Confusion (UGH)–Adler v. McNeil

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

BONUS : Plaintiffs allege that the marketing rights that Stevens and Hughes purchased from Google and Facebook directed searches for the Blaux brand to [link] where Stevens and Hughes sold products that competed with the Blaux portable air conditioner. What are “marketing rights”??? Case citation : Jim S.