Tag Archives: standing

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

Posted on January 6, 2020 by

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

statutory Lanham Act standing exists when advertiser is advertising but not yet selling

Posted on December 27, 2019 by

CareDx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc., 2019 WL 7037799, No. 19-662-CFC-CJB (D. Del. Dec. 20, 2019) (magistrate) A nicely reasoned opinion about impending competition as sufficient to find likely harm from false advertising. CareDx makes AlloSure, a patented kidney transplant surveillance … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

general allegations of harm to Legalforce from TM scammer sufficed for Lexmark standing

Posted on November 18, 2019 by

Legalforce RAPC Worldwide P.C. v. Glotrade, No. 19-CV-01538-LHK, 2019 WL 6036618 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2019) Legalforce “offers services including trademark preparation and prosecution, patent preparation and prosecution, copyright registration and counseling, international trademark and patent filings, and corporate formation … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

ThermoLife continues mixed record in pleading competitive injury from other supplements

Posted on October 29, 2019 by

ThermoLife International LLC v. Compound Solutions Inc., No. CV-19-01473-PHX-SMM, 2019 WL 5448804 (D. Ariz. Jul. 30, 2019) ThermoLife develops “amino acid nitrates used in dietary supplements to increase vasodilation,” and alleged that vasodilators are “included in nearly every pre-workout product … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

ingredient supplier has standing against disparagement of products/false claims about competing product

Posted on October 10, 2019 by

ThermoLife Int’l LLC v. Vital Pharms. Inc., No. 19-cv-61380-BLOOM/Valle, 2019 WL 4954622 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 8, 2019) ThermoLife licenses/sells a patented creatine nitrate used in dietary supplements, which is allegedly included in many top-selling dietary supplements. VPX allegedly attacked ThermoLife’s … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Lexmark is super-clear: business customers can’t sue for Lanham Act false advertising

Posted on October 4, 2019 by

Jiaherb, Inc. v. MTC Indus., Inc., 2019 WL 4785784, Civil No. 18-15532 (KSH) (CLW) (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2019) Brief but very clear statement: after Lexmark, business customers can’t bring Lanham Act claims. Jiaherb makes herbal extracts and other natural products, … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

false patent marking and implicit claims of Nobel connection in a supplement case

Posted on September 9, 2019 by

ThermoLife Int’l, L.L.C. v. NeoGenis Labs, Inc., 2019 WL 4193968, No. 18-cv-2980-HRH (D. Ariz. Sept. 4, 2019)  ThermoLife allegedly holds a number of patents related to dietary supplement/food ingredients, including those related to “the use of amino acids in combination … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment