Tag Archives: false advertising

Even in default, damages must still be shown

NITV Fed. Servs., LLC v. Dektor Corp., 2019 WL 7899731 No. 18-80994-Civ-Brannon (S.D. Fla. Dec. 16, 2019) This is a default judgment, but it still has interesting bits. The parties compete to sell truth verification technology, which will become ironic. … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

“Kids” in product name represents that product is safe for children to use

Mirza v. Ignite USA, LLC, 2020 WL 704791, No. 19 C 5836 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 12, 2020) Ignite sells reusable beverage containers, coffee mugs, water bottles, and kids’ cups under the Contigo brand name. Plaintiffs bought Contigo Kids Cleanable Water … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

when you buy a business whose mark is the owner’s photo, make sure you get all the rights

Minott v. Wichita Water Conditioning, Inc., No. 18-cv-01656-MSK-SKC, 2020 WL 616359 (D. Colo. Feb. 7, 2020) Minott used to own Fluid, which operated a water conditioning business under the trade name Chuck, The Water Man. Fluid made extensive use of … Continue reading

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

Judge Alsup seems to think cosmetic mask claims are false

Miller v. Peter Thomas Roth, LLC, 2020 WL 363045, No. C 19-00698 WHA (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2020) OK, he doesn’t say so outright, but wait for the bit about the in-court demonstration he expects. Defendants PTR Labs sell “specialty … Continue reading

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

Malwarebytes: same result, new puzzles on remand for 230 immunity

Enigma Software Group USA, LLC v. Malwarebytes, Inc., — F.3d —-, 2019 WL 7373959, No. 17-17351 (9th Cir. Dec. 31, 2019) New opinion, same result; no rehearing en banc. Because the parties are competitors, §230 does not provide Malwarebytes with … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

another timeshare exit company can be sued under state law, but not Lanham Act

Orange Lake Country Club, Inc. v. Reed Hein & Assoc., LLC, 2019 WL 7423517, No: 6:17-cv-1542-Orl-78DCI (M.D. Fla. Oct. 4, 2019) Another timeshare case, this one kicking out Lanham Act claims but not FDUTPA deceptive practices claims on proximate cause. … Continue reading

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

“most experienced” is puffery, but misrepresenting degree of responsibility for projects could be false

Cypress Advisors, Inc. v. Davis, 2019 WL 7290948, No. 17-cv-01219-MSK-KLM (D. Colo. Aug. 28, 2019) Cypress provides financial advice to clients in the franchise restaurant industry. Defendant Kent Davis used to work there, but he left and started a competing … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment