Remove Copying Remove Fair Use Remove False Advertising
article thumbnail

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

43(B)log

Its TOS provide that users will not use Roblox content outside of the Roblox Platform, monetize Roblox content, or imply an association with Roblox for their businesses outside of the Roblox Platform. Wowwee sells a line of dolls called “My Avastars,” which plaintiffs allege were “copied directly from Roblox’s Classic Avatars.”

Copying 94
article thumbnail

Using dominant competitor's part names/numbers for comparison isn't false advertising, TM infringement, or (c) infringement

43(B)log

15, 2023) Simpson sued its competitor MiTek for using Simpson part numbers for structural connectors/fasteners for use in the construction industry in its catalogs/other promotional material; the court here, after a nonjury trial before the magistrate judge, rather comprehensively rejects its false advertising, trademark, and copyright claims. (It

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Atari’s Copyright Claim Against State Farm Survives Challenge

Copyright Lately

In May, State Farm filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit (read here) , arguing that Atari was “seeking a windfall for the inadvertent and fleeting use of a decades-old arcade game.” The Fair Use Defense The court also denied State Farm’s motion to dismiss Atari’s copyright claim based on the fair use defense.

Fair Use 102
article thumbnail

"TM-compliant" ads not shown to be nominative fair use

43(B)log

First, nominative fair use permits only the “truthful use of a mark.” Toyota, 610 F.3d 3d at 1177. Defendants contended that one axe “meet[s] WATL Regulations” and that another “meets WATL Regulations with a slight modification that is commonly made.”

article thumbnail

State Farm’s Nod to Nostalgia Sparks Copyright Clash With Atari

Copyright Lately

Atari asserts claims not only for copyright infringement but also “business disparagement,” unfair competition and false advertising as well. The de minimis defense isn’t often discussed in copyright opinions because lawsuits aren’t typically brought over relatively inconsequential instances of copying.

article thumbnail

TIL: “Texas Tamale” Is an Enforceable Trademark–Texas Tamale v. CPUSA2

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Among other limits, the court refuses to enjoin the defendants’ keyword ad buys, though the restriction applies to trademark references in the ad copy: District courts in the Fifth Circuit have held that “in and of itself—using a competitor’s trademark as a Google AdWords or keyword does not constitute trademark infringement.”

article thumbnail

comparison charts might infringe if lacking a disclaimer

43(B)log

24, 2022) This seems like a silly result to me, shifting the burden to comparative advertisers, but it's often much harder to get summary judgment in a trademark case than in comparable cases. PennEngineering claims a PEM family of marks and sued Peninsula for trademark infringement, counterfeiting, false advertising, and unfair competition.