Tag Archives: standing

local ad company has Lanham Act standing against Meta for allegedly overstating ad reach

Metroplex Communic., Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 2024 WL 940127, No. 22-cv-1455-SMY (S.D. Ill. Mar. 5, 2024) Metroplex, a local advertising company, brought a putative class action against Meta for unfair competition. Although Meta argued that Metroplex was an ad … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

prospective injunctive relief for consumers hangs on in 9th Circuit for now

Clark v. Eddie Bauer LLC, 2024 WL 177755, No. 21-35334 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2024) This unpublished opinion has a dissent from Judge Bea indicating further disruptions in standing may be coming. Clark appealed the dismissal of her putative class … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

over dissent, 6th Circuit holds that large player in fragmented market could show proximate cause under Lexmark

Campfield v. Safelite Gp., Inc., — F.4th —-, 2024 WL 164976, Nos. 22-3204/3225 (6th Cir. Jan. 16, 2024) Over a dissent in relevant part, the court revived plaintiff Ultra Bond’s Lanham Act claim relating to vehicle glass repair and replacement … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

who has standing to challenge robot lawyers?

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

TM co-owner can’t challenge uses authorized by other co-owners (bonus Lexmark reasoning)

Reed v. Marshall, 2023 WL 6963661, No. H-21-3942 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 20, 2023) In 1991, Reed and defendants Marshall and Harris formed the recording group Jade, and in 1992 they signed an exclusive recording agreement with a now-defunct label, Giant. … Continue reading

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

Proximate cause defeats false advertising claims against standard setting body allegedly packed by competitors

Geomatrix, LLC v. NSF International, — F.4th —-, 2023 WL 5925977, No. 22-1947 (6th Cir. Sept. 12, 2023) Discussion of opinion below. Geomatrix sells a septic system that substantially differs from those sold by its competitors. It asserts defendants, those … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

SlimFast products aren’t “clinically proven,” even if the SlimFast plan is, allowing false advertising claim to survive

McCracken v. KSF Acquisition Corp., 2023 WL 5667869, No. 5:22-cv-01666-SB-SHK (C.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2023) McCracken alleged that SlimFast food products were falsely advertised as “CLINICALLY PROVEN [ – ] LOSE WEIGHT & KEEP IT OFF” on the front of … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

plaintiff has standing to seek injunctive relief against allegedly falsely advertised penile implant

Peña v. International Medical Devices, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-03391-SSS-PLAx, 2023 WL 5667568 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2023) Plaintiff brought the usual California statutory claims against Penuma, a penile implant/procedure, for alleged misstatements about Penuma’s safety and efficacy. Here, we deal only … Continue reading

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

over aggressive partial dissent, 11th Cir. allows some class claims against Ford “track ready” claims to proceed

Tershakovec v. Ford Motor Company, Inc., — F.4th —-, 2023 WL 4377585, No. 22-10575 (11th Cir. Jul. 7, 2023) Discussion of district court opinion. Ford advertised its Shelby GT350 Mustang as “track ready.” “But some Shelby models weren’t equipped for … Continue reading

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

conclusory allegations of confusion don’t allege statutory standing for TM claim

Blacks in Technology Int’l v. Greenlee, 2023 WL 4186376, No. 3:20-CV-3008-X (N.D. Tex. Jun. 26, 2023) On one side: Blacks in Technology International (BIT International), Blacks United in Leading Technology International (BUILT), and Blacks in Technology, Texas (BIT Texas). On … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment