Tag Archives: false advertising

hashtags are plausibly infringing; sales claims plausibly false based on P’s own history of sales

Automated Pet Care Prods., LLC v. Purlife Brands, Inc., 2023 WL 3046592, No. 22-cv-04261-VC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2023) In two opinions on the same day, the court dealt with various IP/false advertising claims brought by one litter box seller … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

fake meat law reinstated on appeal: intentionally misleading commercial speech gets no protection

Turtle Island Foods, S.P.C. v. Strain, No. 22-30236 (5th Cir. Apr. 12, 2023) Reversing the district court, the court of appeals found that Tofurkey’s facial challenge to a Louisiana anti-fake meat law failed because the law plausibly could be read … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

paying a referral fee is a consumer injury, not a competitor injury, for Lanham Act standing purposes

Lewis v. Acuity Real Estate Services, LLC, 63 F.4th 1114 (6th Cir. 2023) Acuity operates a website that connects people looking to buy or sell homes with a local real-estate agent in their area. Acuity offers its services for free … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Press release touting preliminary injunction can found false advertising counterclaims

Zest Anchors, LLC v. Geryon Ventures, LLC, 2023 WL 2903668, No. 22-CV-230 TWR (NLS) (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2023) Zest sued defendants for trademark/trade dress infringement, alleging that defendants’ DESSLoc suite of denture attachment products infringed the trademarks and trade … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Monster wins permanent injunction against VPX in false advertising case

Monster Energy Co. v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2023 WL 2918724, No. EDCV 18-1882 JGB (SHKx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2023) Following a large verdict for Monster on false advertising claims, this opinion discusses extensively the requirements for injunctive relief in … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

timeshare exit firm wins fee award where plaintiff failed to show key elements of claim

Club Exploria, LLC v. Aaronson, Austin, P.A., 2022 WL 19479011, No 6:18-cv-576-JA-DCI (M.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2022) (R&R) “[F]ew parties are as adversarial—or as litigious—as timeshare developers and timeshare exit companies.” Plaintiffs, timeshare developers, sued defendants, a timeshare exit law … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Agency liability theory satisfies “commercial advertising or promotion” requirement of promoting one’s own products/services

Ariix, LLC v. Nutrisearch Corp., 2023 WL 2933306, No. 17CV320-LAB (DDL) (S.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2023) Previous court of appeals ruling discussed here. Ariix alleged that NutriSearch, the publisher of the NutriSearch Comparative Guide to Nutritional Supplements, and the Guide’s … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

even if retailer is responsible for price premium, misleading label is actionable

DiGiacinto v. RB Health (US) LLC, — F.Supp.3d —-, 2023 WL 2918745, No. 22-cv-04690-DMR (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2023) Plaintiff alleged that Children’s Delsym Cough Relief was misleadingly marketed as different from, and more expensive than, the adult product, when … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Even in default, it’s not TM infringement to resell legitimate goods (but maybe false advertising to call them new)

Quincy Bioscience, LLC v. BRYK Enters., LLC, 2023 WL 2933464, No. 22-cv-658-jdp (W.D. Wis. Apr. 13, 2023) I don’t usually blog default cases because there’s usually little legal analysis; this case is an exception around the fraught area of first … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

lidocaine suits find pain point as judge dismisses claim

 Prescott v. Rite Aid Corp., — F.Supp.3d —-, 2023 WL 2753899, No. 22-cv-05798-VC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2023) Breaking with several previous cases, this court holds that Rite Aid’s “Maximum Strength Pain Relief Lidocaine Patches” with 4% aren’t misleading even … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment