Remove Brands Remove False Advertising Remove Marketing Remove Trademark
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

facially plausible false advertising claim can be added to TM complaint

43(B)log

Copper Compression Brands LLC, 2021 WL 5013799, No. 27, 2021) Ideavillage sued CCB for trademark infringement and false designation of origin related to Ideavillage’s “Copper Fit” line of copper-infused compression garments. Here, the court granted leave to amend to add a false advertising claim.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

YouTube Defeats Trademark Lawsuit–Lops v. YouTube

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Leonel Lops claims a trademark in the term “Confidence Empire” for shoes. He alleges that YouTube sold items under the “Confidence Empire” brand and published videos from a dance troupe named Confidence Empire (maybe this one ?). The post YouTube Defeats Trademark Lawsuit–Lops v. eBay and Sellify v.

article thumbnail

Announcing the Sixth Edition of Advertising & Marketing Law: Cases & Materials by Tushnet & Goldman

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Rebecca Tushnet and I are pleased to announce the sixth edition of our casebook, Advertising & Marketing Law: Cases & Materials. Chapter 2: What is an Advertisement? Chapter 3: False Advertising Overview. Chapter 9: False Advertising Practice and Remedies. Price: $12. Chapter 4: Deception.

Editing 119
article thumbnail

TM complainant fails to sink its teeth into unrelated false advertising claims

43(B)log

Vampire Family Brands, LLC v. MPL Brands, Inc., Unsurprisingly, the trademark claims survive a motion to dismiss, but associated false advertising claims don’t. It seems more like a concession of lack of market penetration if you have to rely on your own website and the PTO’s records to show public recognition!]

article thumbnail

IIC decision also says some things about false advertising: materiality may not be presumed from literal falsity

43(B)log

I won’t say much about that, though I do have a big question, but there are also false advertising aspects of the case. The parties compete in the market for adjustable air mattresses and related products. Plaintiffs’ registered trademarks include “SLEEP NUMBER”, “WHAT’S YOUR SLEEP NUMBER”, “SELECT COMFORT”, and “COMFORTAIRE.”

article thumbnail

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

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This is a case involving a trademark owner and a competitive keyword advertiser. The trademark owner memorably (and ridiculously) characterized the rival as engaging in “keyword conquesting,” a term I encourage you never to use. The court already sent that trademark claim to the jury ( my blog post on that ruling ).