article thumbnail

10th Circuit endorses presumption of Lanham Act false advertising injury in mostly two-player market

43(B)log

Vitamins Online sued Heartwise under the Lanham Act and Utah’s Unfair Competition Law for false advertising about the ingredients of its competitive nutritional supplements and manipulating those products’ Amazon reviews. A presumption of injury began in the Second Circuit for comparative advertising. Heartwise, Inc.,

article thumbnail

antitrust claim against Suboxone, including false advertising, survives summary judgment

43(B)log

22, 2022) The court here allows an antitrust claim to proceed based in part on allegedly false/misleading statements because they form part of the alleged anticompetitive product-hopping scheme and because the unique characteristics of the drug market make market-based responses to false advertising difficult.

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

Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute False Advertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet v. Troia

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

” This definition of a service is an obvious tautology, and it’s also obviously in tension with the First Amendment. So by the time the court says “the parties are vying for users in the same ‘market,'” you know that the judge has lost the thread. ” So why wasn’t that dispositive?

article thumbnail

gray marketer's counterclaims against Toyota survive, but it still must defend itself

43(B)log

Toyota USA sued Allen for grey marketing in violation of the Lanham Act and related claims, asserting that material differences included the existence of a manufacturer-backed warranty, the shipping and packaging of the parts, and the appearance and condition of the parts. The court declined to dismiss the counterclaims.

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. Baxter; 996 F.3d 3d 925 (8 th Cir. How much of this is even relevant for determining whether IIC exists? 1) was the error.

article thumbnail

Cracks in the foundation: Laches and proximate cause defeat auto glass false advertising claim

43(B)log

Safelite allegedly falsely advertised that (1) “if damage spreads beyond the size of a dollar bill, a replacement will be necessary”; (2) “when a chip is smaller than a dollar bill, it can usually be repaired without replacing the windshield.” can be safe and is viable.” Were plaintiffs’ injuries proximately caused by Safelite?

article thumbnail

disparagement campaign in niche jewelry market could violate Lanham Act

43(B)log

Both sides now claim the other is liable for false advertising, among other claims.” Defendants also allegedly infringed RCI’s trademarks by using photographs of Roberto Coin jewelry and RCI’s logo in Kings Stone’s advertising after RCI terminated the relationship. Instagram ultimately removed the posts.