Tag Archives: tortious interference

Monster Energy can’t show falsity, can show tortious interference (but not irreparable injury)

Monster Energy Co. v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2019 WL 3099711, No. EDCV 18-1882 JGB (SHKx) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2019) The court denied a preliminary injunction on Monster’s claim that Vital falsely advertised its “Super Creatine” as “creatine,” because there … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

lack of specifics, even with certification involved, dooms falsity claim

Hydro-Blok USA LLC v. Wedi Corp., 2019 WL 2515318, No. C15-671 TSZ (W.D. Wash. Jun. 18, 2019) Wedi and Hydro-Blok compete in the market for construction materials and sealants for use in bathroom systems, including showers. Wedi accused Hydro-Blok of … Continue reading

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

variety in superiority claims can add up to disparagement

Deerpoint Group, Inc. v. Agrigenix, LLC, 2019 WL 2513756, No. 18-CV-0536 AWI BAM (E.D. Cal. Jun. 18, 2019) Deerpoint sued Agrigenix for violating the Lanham Act and California’s UCL via false advertising, violating California and federal trade secret law, and … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

photo of competitor’s product not false where it’s indistinguishable; also some design patent functionality

Tactical Medical Solutions, Inc. v. KARL 2019 WL 2435859, No. 14 C 06035 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 11, 2019) TMS sued Karl and his sole proprietorship, EMI, for infringement of TMS’s design and utility patents by selling a “knockoff” version of … Continue reading

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

preyed on twice over: timeshare and timeshare exit lawyer squabble with consumers as collateral damage

Westgate Resorts, Ltd. v. Sussman, No. 6:17-cv-1467-Orl-37DCI (M.D. Fla. May 31, 2019) OK, this fact shocked me: about 35% of Westgate’s timeshare buyers default some time during their loan periods, according to the decision here in this battle in the … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Timeshare wars: no Lanham Act standing for property owner

Wyndham Vacation Ownership v. Reed Hein & Assoc., LLC, 2019 WL 2232241, No. 18-cv-02171-GAP-DCI (M.D. Fla. May 23, 2019) Somebody seriously needs to write a story about the litigation war going on between timeshare companies and firms that sue timeshare … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

law firm alleging clients lost to competitor satisfies Lexmark, in part

Brave Law Firm, LLC v. Truck Accident Lawyers Group, Inc., No. 17-1156-EFM-JPO, 2019 WL 2073872 (D. Kan. May 10, 2019) Brave, a personal injury firm, sued various parties for violating the Lanham Act and Kansas state law.   It alleged … Continue reading

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

Non-party video provides plausibility to falsify claim that hose is “tough enough to tow a truck”

Telebrands Corp. v. Ragner Technol. Corp., No. 16-3474 (ES) (MAH), 2019 WL 1468156 (D.N.J. Apr. 3, 2019) “The dispute between these parties spans multiple lawsuits, multiple jurisdictions, and even multiple countries.” Ragner owns patents for expandable hoses.  Telebrands sells expandable … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Allegedly defamatory claims in e-recycling report weren’t commercial speech despite some economic incentive

Electronic Recycling Ass’n v. Basel Action Network, 2019 WL 1453575, No. C18-1601-MJP (W.D. Wash. Apr. 2, 2019) Plaintiff ERA is a Canadian non-profit corporation that specializes in recovering, refurbishing, and reusing discarded electronic equipment or “e-waste.” When it determines that … Continue reading

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

Lawyer’s solicitation of litigation against timeshare company could violate Lanham Act

Diamond Resorts International, Inc. v. Aaronson, — F. Supp. 3d —-, 2019 WL 1445181, No. 17-cv-1394-Orl-37DCI (M.D. Fla. Mar. 5, 2019) With all the discussion about “opening up the libel laws,” it’s notable that Lexmark has accomplished very much the … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment