Remove Brands Remove False Advertising Remove Marketing Remove Settlement
article thumbnail

California Supreme Court reaffirms strict liability for false advertising in Serova

43(B)log

18, 2022) Not bound by Article III, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling despite the parties’ settlement. 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.’”

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.

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

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. 1-800 Contacts. * FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-Competitive–FTC v. Google appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

IP 126
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

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.

article thumbnail

Court Dismisses Trademark Claims Over Internal Search Results–Las Vegas Skydiving v. Groupon

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Las Vegas Skydiving Adventures offers tandem skydiving under the “Fyrosity” brand. Melwani sells products under the “Royal Silk” brand. 1-800 Contacts. * FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-Competitive–FTC v. It has never offered its services through Groupon.