Tag Archives: false advertising

Copyright infringement is channeled into (c), not state or Lanham Act claims

Quadratec, Inc. v. Turn 5, Inc., 2015 WL 4876314, No. 13–6384 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 13, 2015)   The parties compete to sell removable soft tops and other aftermarket parts and accessories for Jeep vehicles. Quadratec alleged that it invests substantial … Continue reading

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

overclaiming study results to apply to unstudied product can be false/misleading

In re Riddell Concussion Reduction Litig., No. 13–7585, 2015 WL 4640425 (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2015)   The plaintiffs sued Riddell for marketing football helmets based on allegedly false or misleading claims that the helmets were equipped with unique concussion reduction … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

IPSC: Copyright again

Copyright History Shyam Balganesh University of Pennsylvania Law School The Questionable Origins of the Copyright Infringement Analysis   Jerome Frank’s infamous/canonical © infringement test from Arnstein v. Porter, influential across the country. Step 1: actual copying, dissection allowed, expert testimony … Continue reading

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

Another circuit agrees that Dastar-barred claims can’t be repled as false advertising

Kehoe Component Sales Inc. v. Best Lighting Products, Inc., — F.3d —-, No. 14–3347, 2015 WL 4635824 (6th Cir. Aug. 5, 2015)   Best asked Kehoe (“Pace”) to make specialized lighting products for Best.  After Pace made enough units to … Continue reading

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

IPSC: Other IP

Other IP  [Insert wry commentary about “fringe” fields like advertising law]   Sarah Burstein, The University of Oklahoma College of Law Reviving Ornamentality    Fed. Cir. killed the doctrine.  Statute says new, original, and ornamental designs can get a design … Continue reading

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

Presumption of injury saves Lanham Act monetary award

General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Chumley, — Fed.Appx. —-, 2015 WL 4591924, Nos. 14–1119, 14–1121 (10th Cir. July 31, 2015)   Chumley formerly worked for General Steel, then founded Armstrong after an unfriendly parting.  The parties compete to sell … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

4th Circuit denies rehearing in In re GNC

😦 If this ruling sticks and is actually applied in Lanham Act cases (something of which I am uncertain), then the resulting circuit split would probably justify Supreme Court review, given the Court’s newfound interest in 43(a)(1)(B). from Blogger http://ift.tt/1SguBHc

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Claims about computer expertise aren’t puffery to ordinary consumers

Burton v. iYogi, Inc., 2015 WL 4385665, No. 13–CV–6926 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2015)   iYogi provides computer diagnostics and repair, general troubleshooting, updates to computer drivers, security protection, and PC speed and performance optimization. To market itself, iYogi offers “Free … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Uber’s safety claims not all puffery

L.A. Taxi Cooperative, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., — F. Supp. 3d —-, 2015 WL 4397706, No. 15-cv-01257 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 17, 2015)   Uber makes various safety-related claims, such as its website’s claims to offer the “SAFEST RIDES ON … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

BBB claims about its own ratings process not protected by First Amendment

Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. v. Better Business Bureau of Palm Beach County, Inc., No. 4D13-3916 (Fla. Ct. App. June 3, 2015) Expect more detailed analysis from Ann Lipton soon.   CC received an F grade from BBB and sued for … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment