Tag Archives: standing

No Lanham Act causation in another timeshare exit case

Westgate Resorts, Ltd. v. Reed Hein & Assoc., LLC, 2020 WL 674108, No: 6:18-cv-1088-Orl-31DCI (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2020) Yay, another time share exit opinion. As relevant here, the court rejected the timeshare company’s Lanham Act claim because the allegedly … 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

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

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

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

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

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

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