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. However, the Noerr-Pennington doctrine didn’t apply to this case at this stage of the litigation.

article thumbnail

Section 230 Helps Amazon Defeat False Advertising Lawsuit Over Printer Ink Cartridges–Planet Green v. Amazon

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

However, with scant followup media attention, this lawsuit (filed in August, dismissed in December) rocket-docketed to failure faster than remanufactured printer cartridges run out of ink. * * * Note: The litigation GoFundMe page is still up. They have raised a total of $150 of their $500k goal. This argument has failed so many times.

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

Chanel’s Win in Trademark Infringement Case is a Lesson for Resellers

IP Watchdog

Fashion is a brand-driven industry, and few brands in the fashion space carry the same cachet as Chanel. But how much control do brands like Chanel have over merchants who resell name-brand items in the secondary market? The answer, according to a federal jury in the Southern District of New York, is “Quite a bit.”

article thumbnail

patent misrepresentations to prospective dealer could be false advertising under Dastar/Lexmark

43(B)log

Shingle Savers counterclaimed, alleging, among other things, false advertising under the Lanham Act and violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Lanham Act/ODTPA claims: First, the court declined to hold that Rule 9(b) applied to Lanham Act false advertising claims, which don’t require fraud.

article thumbnail

WIPIP session 4: ™ & Consumers

43(B)log

Mary Katherine Amerine, Reasonably Careless Consumers in TM & False Advertising How do courts treat consumers in TM and false advertising cases? False advertising uses v different framework: consider the challenged ad as a whole, including disclaimers and qualifying language. Beer Nuts, Bulls’ Eye v.

article thumbnail

Inter American Convention allows claims that Lanham Act makes dubious after Abitron; but what about Article III?

43(B)log

Industria, based on Colombia, produces and distributes food products under two relevant brand names: Zenú and Ranchera. They’re successful brands: approximately $300,000,000 annually in sales of Zenú products and $100,000,000 in sales of Ranchera products. Its cancellation petition for Zenú has been suspended during this litigation.

article thumbnail

Section 230 Protects Services That Permit Anonymous Third-Party Posts–Bride v. Snap

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

A couple of specifics: The false advertising claims don’t escape 230: “Had those third-party users refrained from posting harmful content, Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendants falsely advertised and misrepresented their applications’ safety would not be cognizable.” Despite Doe v. I share the heartbreak.