Indiana Intellectual Property Law

JULY 16, 2021

Trademark Registration No. ABI claims it has attained significant goodwill throughout the United States and the world and that Defendants alleged misleading and false advertisements have caused irreparable damage to ABI’s reputation.

False Advertising 52

False Advertising Trademark Intellectual Property Advertising 52

SpicyIP

MARCH 10, 2024

Image from here In the case of Sterling Agro Industries Limited vs ASR Trading Company , the Delhi High Court while dealing with a trademark infringement suit, imputed mala fide intention to ASR Trading’s (the Defendant) act of applying for a trademark registration. His previous posts can be accessed here.

Trademark 59

Trademark Registering Trademarks Registration False Advertising 59

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

AUGUST 30, 2023

This is a competitive keyword advertising lawsuit. The plaintiff has a trademark registration for the “Nursing CE Central” mark for providing continuing education for nurses. The litigants directly compete. Bye, Goff * Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. Mark similarity.

Advertising 89

Advertising Advertising False Advertising Trademark 89

43(B)log

SEPTEMBER 5, 2023

Core-Brace alleged both false advertising and false association from the statements in the design manual and related documents. I don't know on what statements, since the court rejected the Lanham Act false advertising claims (and see just next for even more weirdness). So it could go to trial.

False Advertising 59

False Advertising Law Advertising Advertising 59

43(B)log

MARCH 18, 2022

They alleged violation of California’s FAL and UCL, false advertising under the Lanham Act, trade libel, and negligence. The court rejected Mosafer’s argument that the speech was unprotected because the activities of which they complain were illegal under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

Law 59

Law False Advertising Social Media Branding 59

43(B)log

OCTOBER 4, 2021

WPI counterclaimed against Restellini and third-party Institut Restellini SAS – Documentation Centre alleging copyright infringement and false advertising. Cases about false advertising of the source of “services” were inapposite. “[T]he This opinion got rid of the counterclaims. “In

False Advertising 59

False Advertising Artwork IP Advertising 59

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

SEPTEMBER 28, 2021

Those requirements will impose huge compliance costs, but those investments won’t prevent online marketplaces from being dragged into extraordinarily expensive and high-stakes litigation over eligibility for this defense. Also, product shots have been a constant source of copyright litigation. eBay rejected.

Trademark 139

Trademark False Advertising Advertising Advertising 139

43(B)log

FEBRUARY 16, 2024

In Two Pesos, the Supreme Court tells us that “the general principles qualifying a mark for registration under § 2 of the Lanham Act are for the most part applicable in determining whether an unregistered mark is entitled to protection under § 43(a).” Tam and Brunetti, striking down various bars on registration. Then, in Lexmark v.

Trademark 59

Trademark Fair Use Registration False Advertising 59

43(B)log

OCTOBER 5, 2021

There are two pending applications for “Dadalorian,” both filed by non-Disney entities, and no registrations, if you are wondering.) The Court refuses to reach any such conclusion or finding regarding the items purchased by Plaintiff at this early stage of the litigation.” So was she likely to show a violation of the Lanham Act?

Registration 45

Registration Litigation Business Law 45

43(B)log

FEBRUARY 24, 2024

Crystals and mud story about this: in many to many, an attractive case for more crystalline, bright line, formalist rules for cancelling registrations. State bars don’t have standing requirements and you don’t have to litigate in the case itself. Is registration required? One to one is more attractive for standards.

Fair Use 45

Fair Use Branding Brands Branding 45

43(B)log

FEBRUARY 24, 2021

Apparently Consumer protection agency called Sephora to clarify the situation—there was no litigation. may require disclosures and charitable registration: Draper James teachers giveaway. Twitter reviews for Sephora where consumers were demanding money for allegedly expired products and saying they couldn’t get refunds from Sephora.

Advertising 40

Advertising Advertising Law Privacy 40

43(B)log

DECEMBER 1, 2022

Second, of course, confusing and explicitly misleading are two very different things—even “fraudulent” and explicitly misleading are two very different things, which is one reason that Lanham Act false advertising cases have developed workarounds to treat deliberately misleading ads the same way as explicitly false ads.

Artistic Work 64

Artistic Work Television Trademark Trademark Law 64

SpicyIP

DECEMBER 30, 2023

The decisions in the first category, i.e., Top 10 IP Cases/Judgements (Topicality/Impact) reflect those that we thought were important from a topical point of view and were covered by the media in some way owing to the importance of parties litigating or the issue being considered or for impact on industry and innovation/creativity ecosystem etc.

IP 124

IP Copyright Trademark Intellectual Property 124

43(B)log

NOVEMBER 8, 2023

Malwarebytes, which allowed a false advertising claim to proceed based on one software provider’s use of the terms “malicious” and “threat” to describe its alleged competitor’s software, despite a dissent raising free speech arguments. Then I’ll talk about the 9 th Circuit case Enigma Software v.

False Advertising 75

False Advertising Advertising Advertising Trademark 75

43(B)log

FEBRUARY 3, 2023

Most obvious formalism to her is set of presumptions and burden shifts that come w/registration. Lemley: is/should there be contributory false advertising liability? We don’t need to reform advertising law; we need to reform agency law. How do they make that happen? Gender and class?

False Advertising 45

False Advertising Trademark Advertising Advertising 45

43(B)log

FEBRUARY 3, 2024

Harms: speech, consumer protection (false advertising/disappointed expectations), competition/antitrust, innovation/fair use, interoperability, accessibility, security and privacy, environmental harms of unrepairable devices. Property 1201 met connected devices—computers are everywhere. Pam Samuelson: don’t forget 1202.

Privacy 59

Privacy Fair Use Fanworks Government 59

43(B)log

FEBRUARY 28, 2022

23, 2022) Healthvana operates a health app, Healthvana, and has a trademark (registration) for use in connection with software and software as a service. Healthvana sued in May 2020 for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false advertising in violation of both federal and state law, as well for cybersquatting under ACPA.

False Advertising 64

False Advertising Marketing Marketing Branding 64