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

article thumbnail

Alleging sponsorship/endorsement confusion can't defeat clear nominative fair use

43(B)log

Trademark/unfair competition claims: these were all based on alleged use of the “Rose Bowl” mark in an Instagram post made on the Rose Bowl Stadium’s official Instagram account, together with an image of the official program from the 1956 iteration of the Rose Bowl Game. The Instagram post was before the court and was NFU.

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

using competitor's images in comparative advertising is fair use even when appearance isn't being compared

43(B)log

The parties had other disputes, including accusing each other of posting false reviews of the other. IDT removed its “Made in USA” advertising in the first 8 months of 2022, and its on-line sales increased during that time period. The ads used the entire images. There’s more, including public disputes on Craigslist.

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

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

43(B)log

Unsurprisingly, the trademark claims survive a motion to dismiss, but associated false advertising claims don’t. VFB alleged trademark infringement, and that the Vampiro Cocktail label’s claims that it is made from 100% agave and with grapefruit were false advertising that would tarnish and dilute VFB’s marks.

article thumbnail

TM infringement and false advertising claims related to putative open source software "fork" succeed

43(B)log

This has caused some confusion about whether and when a commercial license from Neo4j USA is necessary to use, modify or redistribute the software in a commercial setting.” Thus, this was not nominative fair use, but rather a use that created the misleading perception that defendants’ products were Neo4j products.

article thumbnail

Google's "order delivery/takeout" results aren't misleading/TM infringement

43(B)log

They try to articulate claims for trademark infringement, counterfeiting, false association, and false advertising. Thus, “[i]n context, the contested button is not false association or false advertising.”