Tag Archives: standing

9th Circuit refuses to kick out claim over benzene in sunscreen on standing

Posted on October 15, 2024 by rtushnet

Bowen v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., — F.4th —-, 2024 WL 4352496, No. 23-55116 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2024) Bowen sued Energizer for false advertising, alleging that its Banana Boat sunscreen was adulterated with dangerous levels of benzene, a carcinogen that … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

small competitor lacks standing against big one’s nondisparaging advertising

Posted on March 7, 2024 by rtushnet

HomeLight, Inc. v. Shkipin, — F.Supp.3d —-, 2024 WL 940089 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2024) Sometimes, courts are very generous to competitors in presuming Lanham Act standing—as with the recent Meta ruling—and sometimes they aren’t. I have yet to detect a … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

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

Posted on March 6, 2024 by rtushnet

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

Posted on January 18, 2024 by rtushnet

Clark v. Eddie Bauer LLC, 2024 WL 177755, No. 21-35334 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2024) This unpublished opinion has a dissent from Judge Bea indicating further disruptions in standing may be coming.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

Posted on January 17, 2024 by rtushnet

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?

Posted on November 27, 2023 by rtushnet

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)

Posted on October 24, 2023 by rtushnet

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

Posted on September 22, 2023 by rtushnet

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

Posted on September 7, 2023 by rtushnet

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

Posted on September 6, 2023 by rtushnet

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