Tag Archives: false advertising

Using dominant competitor’s part names/numbers for comparison isn’t false advertising, TM infringement, or (c) infringement

Posted on December 18, 2023 by rtushnet

There really should be a fee shift when a competitor harasses another competitor for daring to make comparisons of part numbers, but we don’t seem to live in that world.  Simpson Strong-Tie Co. v. Mitek Inc., 2023 WL 8697700, No. … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Reasonable consumers may not be required to peel back labels in store to read drug facts

Posted on December 15, 2023 by rtushnet

Zimmerman v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 2023 WL 8587620, No. 22-cv-07609-HSG (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2023) This putative class action bringing the usual California statutory claims alleges that L’Oréal misleadingly advertises the sunscreen benefits of some of its cosmetic products, such … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

alleged misrepresentation of partnership/approval suffices for false advertising claim

Posted on December 15, 2023 by rtushnet

Faire Wholesale, Inc. v. Tundra, Inc., 2023 WL 8586681, No. 23-cv-02538-JSC (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2023) When does TM logic creep into false advertising cases? Faire operates an online marketplace connecting wholesalers with retailers. Faire sued Tundra, which makes a … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

false advertising is harder to prove than TM infringement because of the injury requirement (not to mention materiality)

Posted on December 15, 2023 by rtushnet

ImprimisRx, LLC v. OSRX, INC., 2023 WL 8604148, No. 21-cv-01305-BAS-DDL (S.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2023) The parties are compounding pharmacies that focus on medications used in optometry and ophthalmology. Section 503A compounding pharmacies fill prescriptions for individual patients. Section 503B … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Dastar bars false advertising claim against “first of its kind” ads

Posted on December 15, 2023 by rtushnet

 Vericool World LLC v. Igloo Prods. Corp., 2023 WL 8634803, No. 22-cv-02440-HSG (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2023) Vericool alleged that Igloo falsely claimed that its “Recool” biodegradable cooler was the first of its kind. The court found this Dastar-barred, since … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Dastar bars false marking claims brought under Lanham Act (dubitante)

Posted on December 7, 2023 by rtushnet

Urban Dollz LLC v. Lashify, Inc., 2023 WL 8292459, No. CV 23-1427-GW-AFMx (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2023) Super-interesting holding that, while there’s no patent field preemption against bringing false patent marking claims under the Lanham Act, Dastar (as expansively interpreted … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

California’s UCL potentially available against junk fees

Posted on December 7, 2023 by rtushnet

Sepanossian v. National Ready Mix Co., — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2023 WL 7590798, No. B319260 (Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2023) Sepanossian, who operates a construction business, filed a class action against Ready Mix, which sells mixed concrete to small businesses for … Continue reading →

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

Earnings calls, recall notices not “commercial advertising or promotion,” but could be “of and concerning” largest market player

Posted on November 27, 2023 by rtushnet

In re SoClean, Inc., Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liab. Litig., 2023 WL 8006602, MDL No. 3021, No. 22-542 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 17, 2023) Because this is MDL with lots of claims, the facts are a bit complicated. SoClean is … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

too much complaining about copying triggers Dastar/preemption for other claims

Posted on November 27, 2023 by rtushnet

Design Gaps, Inc. v. Hall, 2023 WL 8103156, No. 3:23-cv-186-MOC (W.D.N.C. Nov. 21, 2023) Design Gaps produces custom cabinetry for high-end homes; Hall is a former employee of Design Gaps who signed a nonsolicitation/noncompete clause but went to work for … Continue reading →

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

who has standing to challenge robot lawyers?

Posted on November 27, 2023 by rtushnet

MillerKing, LLC v. DoNotPay, Inc., — F.Supp.3d —-, No. 3:23-CV-863-NJR, 2023 WL 8108547 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2023) “This case pits real lawyers against a robot lawyer.” Spoiler: the robot wins for lack of Article III standing. DoNotPay is an … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment