article thumbnail

putting a label on a product you produce isn't direct false advertising, but could be direct false association

43(B)log

Plaintiffs’ claims sought to hold the dairy farmers directly or contributorily liable under the Lanham Act, and alleged unfair competition/false advertising/deceptive trade practices under Hawaii law. Was a false geographic origin claim one for false association, § 1125(a)(1)(A), or false advertising, § 1125(a)(1)(B)?

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

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

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

” I’ll focus on the false designation of origin claim regarding Troia’s keyword ads. ” Following mid-2000s cases like Lamparello and Lucas Nursery , we rarely see such unforgiving anti-griper opinions that twist the Lanham Act to cover circumstances it was never designed to cover. Reyes & Adler v.

article thumbnail

two opinions send "false advertising of certification mark" claim to jury

43(B)log

pictures of not-good plywood from case Plaintiffs alleged both direct and contributory false advertising. Defendants challenged whether plaintiffs identified any false or misleading statements by defendants. In Baldino’s Lock & Key Serv., Google, Inc., App’x 81 (4th Cir. weren’t the Defendants’ certifications at all.…

article thumbnail

Lexmark allows direct and contributory false advertising claims against certifier

43(B)log

Plaintiffs allegd both direct and contributory false advertising, which requires (1) that the “third party in fact directly engaged in false advertising that injured the plaintiff” and (2) “that the defendant contributed to that conduct either by knowingly inducing, or causing the conduct, or by materially participating in it.”

article thumbnail

4th Circuit upholds contempt ruling in false advertising case: scrub your website and FB account!

43(B)log

7, 2022) The court upheld a contempt finding based on an underlying false advertising claim. Also, a press release that discussed separate litigation in Italy about who owned VSL#3’s bacterial strains, unfairly compared VSL#3 and Visbiome referred to plaintiffs’ “aggressive efforts to sell their competing, generic probiotic product.”

article thumbnail

false advertising claim fails, in part because of stringent antitrust rules

43(B)log

In re EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales Practices & Antitrust Litig., 17, 2020) A lot of stuff here; I will ignore the non-false advertising related aspects of this mostly antitrust case. 17-md-2785-DDC-TJJ (D. Plaintiff Sanofi failed to show a triable issue of fact on (1), (5), and (6).