Tag Archives: tortious interference

Former supplier can sue supplement maker for falsely implying FDA approval & making claims based on old ingredients

In re Elysium Health-Chromadex Litig., 2018 WL 4907590, No. 17 Civ. 7394 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2018)    Elysium, which makes dietary supplements, sued Chromadex, a former supplier, for false advertising under the Lanham Act, trade libel, deceptive business practices … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Amazon not liable for use of TM in review

Sen v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2018 WL 4680018, No. 16-CV-01486-JAH-JLB (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2018) Sen owns the trademark “Baiden” for skin-exfoliation products. Amazon bought “Baiden” through Google’s AdWords program and on other search engines. In 2012, Sen sued Amazon for … Continue reading

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

Using part of an “anticipated order” from a competitor’s supplier constitutes reverse passing off, despite Dastar

OTR Wheel Eng’g, Inc. v. West Worldwide Servs., Nos. 16-35897 16-35936, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20520 (9th Cir. Jul. 24, 2018) OTR Wheel and West compete to sell industrial tires. “West asked one of OTR’s suppliers to provide him with … Continue reading

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

Using part of an “anticipated order” from a competitor’s supplier constitutes reverse passing off, despite Dastar

OTR Wheel Eng’g, Inc. v. West Worldwide Servs., Nos. 16-35897 16-35936, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20520 (9th Cir. Jul. 24, 2018) OTR Wheel and West compete to sell industrial tires. “West asked one of OTR’s suppliers to provide him with … Continue reading

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

The other Redbox case: the color may fade, but not the mark

Redbox Automated Retail, LLC v. Xpress Retail LLC, 2018 WL 950098, No. 17 C 5596 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2018) Redbox sued defendant DVDXpress alleging trademark infringement and false advertising; DVDXpress moved to dismiss and asserted counterclaims/affirmative defenses, some of … Continue reading

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

Are Crocs’ uniqueness claims a crock?

Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., No. 06-cv-00605, 2017 WL 4286148 (D. Colo. Sept. 25, 2017) Crocs makes molded clogs, and Dawgs is a competitor. Allegedly, “[e]ach and every functional feature disclosed in the [’858] patent application, except the heel strap, … Continue reading

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

a few misrepresentations aren’t commercial advertising or promotion

Solmetex, LLC v. Dental Recycling, Inc., No. 17-cv-860, 2017 WL 2840282 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 26, 2017) The parties compete in the market for devices for removing particulate from dental office wastewater. (Did I mention how much I love learning about market … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment