article thumbnail

alleged misrepresentation of partnership/approval suffices for false advertising claim

43(B)log

8, 2023) When does TM logic creep into false advertising cases? And Faire alleged that Tundra repeatedly falsely advertised via phone and email solicitations that Faire was aware of and approved Tundra’s scheme: on December 15, 2022, Tundra’s employee allegedly told Brand A Faire approved of Tundra’s scheme and “it was above board.”

article thumbnail

Examining the Circuit Split on Preliminary Injunctions in False Advertising Post-eBay

IP Watchdog

As fear and anxiety proliferate during this pandemic, fraudulent or false advertisements also surge and explode. Petitioners raise false advertising claims and try to stop misleading advertisements by seeking injunctions.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

plaintiff has standing to seek injunctive relief against allegedly falsely advertised penile implant

43(B)log

Also, in “other cases, the threat of future harm may be the consumer’s plausible allegations that she might purchase the product in the future, despite the fact it was once marred by false advertising or labeling, as she may reasonably, but incorrectly, assume the product was improved.”

article thumbnail

False advertising and TM infringement receive very different damages treatment: case in point

43(B)log

17, 2023) Another entry in the “courts treat Lanham Act false advertising very differently than Lanham Act trademark infringement, despite identical damages provisions” line. CareDx sued Natera for false advertising. Natera, Inc., 19-662-CFC, 2023 WL 4561059 (D. Natera made superiority claims for its Prospera.

article thumbnail

False Advertising: Verifiably False Versus Subjective Opinion

JD Supra Law

In a case originally based on a false advertising claim under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded the district court’s dismissal of the claim. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC v. Malwarebytes, Inc., 21-16466 (9th Cir.

article thumbnail

Retailer has standing to assert Lanham Act false advertising claims against its own supplier

43(B)log

the Lanham Act false advertising claim survived. Lexmark says that “to come within the zone of interests in a suit for false advertising under § 1125(a), a plaintiff must allege an injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales.” Comment: This is a proximate cause question.

article thumbnail

False patent marking claims survive even when Dastar bars false advertising claims based on "innovation"

43(B)log

30, 2024) (R&R) Recommendation: Dastar should block Qingdao’s Lanham Act false advertising counterclaims based on Lashify’s claim to be the originator of lash technology, but false patent marking counterclaims should survive. Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., 2024 WL 629985, No. W-22-CV-00776-ADA-DTG, No. 1, 2017 to Apr.