Tag Archives: disparagement

Publisher avoids liability for ad that allegedly disparaged plaintiff’s goods

Posted on May 5, 2025 by rtushnet

Jewel Sanitary Napkins, LLC v. Busy Beaver Publications, LLC, No. 23-cv-126-slc, 2025 WL 1220311 (W.D. Wisc. Apr. 28, 2025) Jewel makes sanitary napkins containing a layer of material called graphene that Jewel claims has health benefits, while it touts the … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

trademark infringement accusations are opinion without a final judgment

Posted on April 28, 2025 by rtushnet

Trevari Media, LLC v. Colasse, 758 F.Supp.3d 1175 (C.D. Cal. 2024) Colasse accused Trevari of infringing its trade dress in a “[s]pring-loaded glass-breaking device. Although the trade dress was registered in 2014, when Colasse emailed Trevari alleging infringement in 2021, … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

J&J’s talc subsidiary can bring trade libel but not Lanham Act claims against testifying experts

Posted on February 14, 2025 by rtushnet

LLT Management LLC v. Emory, No. 4:24-cv-75, 2025 WL 438100 (E.D. Va. Feb. 7, 2025) The defendants “published an article in a scientific journal, asserting that they had identified 75 people, additional to 33 in an earlier study, who had … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

republishing scientific study to prospective customers isn’t protected opinion

Posted on October 15, 2024 by rtushnet

Advance Dx, Inc. v. YourBio Health, Inc., — F.Supp.3d —-, 2024 WL 4393314, No. 24-10595-WGY (D. Mass. Oct. 3, 2024) Advance sued YourBio, which competes in the market for at-home medical device testing patients’ level of anti-Mullerian hormone, for false … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Expert witnesses as Lanham Act defendants

Posted on July 10, 2023 by rtushnet

Via an eagle-eyed correspondent: J&J’s bankrupt subsidiary LTL is suing the expert witnesses for the mesothelioma victims in the underlying tort litigation for injurious falsehood, fraud, and Lanham Act violations for disparaging J&J’s Baby Powder as causing mesothelioma. They allege … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

disparagement campaign in niche jewelry market could violate Lanham Act

Posted on October 11, 2021 by rtushnet

Roberto Coin, Inc. v. Goldstein, No. 18-CV-4045(EK)(ST), 2021 WL 4502470 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2021) Defendants Goldstein and his company Kings Stone supplied plaintiff RCI with a gemstone they called “black jade.” “After RCI stopped sourcing black jade from Kings Stone … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

accusing a home inspectors’ group of link with NAMBLA isn’t believable enough for defamation

Posted on October 6, 2021 by rtushnet

Examination Board of Professional Home Inspectors v. International Association of Certified Home Inspectors, 2021 WL 492482, No 18-cv-01559-RBJ (D. Colo. Feb. 10, 2021) Although an individual’s comments linking his rival to NAMBLA and Jeffrey Dahmer were non-actionable non-facts, statements arguably … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

patent misrepresentations to prospective dealer could be false advertising under Dastar/Lexmark

Posted on August 20, 2021 by rtushnet

Three very similar cases involving the same plaintiff. Roof Maxx Technol., LLC v. Holsinger, 2021 WL 3617153, No. 2:20-cv-03154 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2021) Roof Maxx distributes “a soy-based liquid product that is sprayed on asphalt shingle roofs to extend … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

robust TX anti-SLAPP law protects critic despite arguments that she was partly competing

Posted on October 19, 2020 by rtushnet

ADB Interest, LLC v. Wallace, 606 S.W.3d 413 (Tex. Ct. App. 2020) This is an anti-SLAPP case about statements by a disgruntled customer/alleged competitor. Black, the managing member of ADB, invented the FasciaBlaster, which is marketed by ADB. The user … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

“all IP” puts C&D recipient on notice of TM (R), and a bit on the meaning of blue check marks

Posted on August 14, 2020 by rtushnet

Commodores Entertainment Corp. v. McClary, Nos. 19-10791, 19-12819, — Fed.Appx. —-, 2020 WL 4218236 (11th Cir. Jul. 23, 2020) As quickly summarized by the court: The prolonged dispute concerns the ownership of the mark “The Commodores,” the name of a … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment