Category Archives: standing

SCIPR: false advertising

Lexmark Int’l v. Static Control Components (Standard for determining standing for false advertising claim under the Lanham Act.) POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola (Standing under the Lanham Act to challenge food or beverage label as false or misleading though regulated by … Continue reading

Posted in conferences, fda,, standing | Leave a comment

"German Quality" could mislead as to German origin

Marty v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, — F. Supp. 2d —-, 2014 WL 4388415, No. 13–23656 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 5, 2014) (magistrate judge) AB brews Beck’s Beer, which originated from and was brewed in Germany from 1873 until 2012 when AB … Continue reading

Posted in consumer protection,, remedies, standing | Leave a comment

Business consumer can’t bring Lanham Act claim after Lexmark

Locus Telecommunications, Inc. v. Talk Global, LLC, No. 14–1205, 2014 WL 4271635 (D.N.J. Aug. 28, 2014) Defendant Expansys allegedly made a false statement on a website promoting its product, personal identification numbers (“PINs”) used to add minutes to prepaid cell … Continue reading

Posted in, standing | Leave a comment

Distributor can be sued for direct false advertising under Lexmark

Toddy Gear, Inc. v. Navarre Corp., 2014 WL 4271631,  No. 13 CV 8703 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 26, 2014) Toddy Gear makes the Toddy Smart Cloth, “a double-sided microfiber cloth with an antimicrobial coating crafted for scratch-free cleaning of extremely sensitive … Continue reading

Posted in, standing | Leave a comment

Lexmark applied to false association claims under 43(a)(1)(A)

Lundgren v. Ameristar Credit Solutions, Inc., 2014 WL 4079962, No. 3:12–263 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 18, 2014) Ameristar is a “debt settlement and tax resolution business,” while Lundgren “was previously in the mortgage service industry and began offering tax resolution services … Continue reading

Posted in, standing, trademark | Leave a comment

Lexmark’s effect on "commercial advertising or promotion"

Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Bunge North America, Inc., 2014 WL 3882886, No. 13-1391 (8th Cir. Aug. 8, 2014) District court opinion discussed here.  This opinion is more Lexmark fallout.  Syngenta, a biotech company that makes genetically modified corn seed (Viptera), … Continue reading

Posted in commercial speech,, standing | Leave a comment

Uber/under: false advertising and association claims against Uber continue

Yellow Group LLC v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 12 C 7967, 2014 WL 3396055 (N.D. Ill. July 10, 2014) Taxi medallion owners, taxi affiliations (taxi dispatch services), and livery service providers sued Uber, alleging that it competed unfairly by misrepresenting … Continue reading

Posted in, standing, trademark | Leave a comment

animal rights organizations have standing to challenge bull run

Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Great Bull Run, LLC, 2014 WL 2568685, No. 14–cv–01171 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2014) ALDF and PETA sued defendants under California’s UCL to enjoin them from operating a bull run. The court denied the motion … Continue reading

Posted in california, standing | Leave a comment

islands in the stream: Netflix v. Verizon

Netflix responds to Verizon’s C&D. For those not keeping track, it started when Netflix started sending error message to certain Verizon customers experiencing playback difficulties, telling them that the Verizon network was slow. Verizon responded angrily, threatening suit and demanding … Continue reading

Posted in advertising,, standing | Leave a comment

Apple loses 230 defense to app privacy claims but still wins dismissal

Opperman v. Path, Inc., 2014 WL 1973378,  No. 13-cv-00453 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2014) This big class action against Apple and fourteen app developers has a lot of issues; I’ll try to focus on the consumer protection parts.  Plaintiffs alleged … Continue reading

Posted in 230, california,, privacy, standing | Leave a comment