In a fifty-seven-page memorandum opinion and order, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a fashion brand its motion for a preliminary injunction preventing its lead designer from...more
3/18/2021
/ Advertising ,
Arrangement and Promotion ,
Contract Terms ,
Employment Contract ,
Fashion Branding ,
Fashion Design ,
Instagram ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Motion To Enjoin ,
Name and Likeness ,
Personality Rights ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Social Media ,
The Copyright Act ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademarks ,
TRO
The Ninth Circuit extended the First Amendment protections enunciated by the Supreme Court in Matal v. Tam, 137 S.Ct. 1744 (2017) to advertising in American Freedom Defense Initiative, et al. v. King County (9th Cir. Sept....more
The FTC continues its efforts to combat deceptive social media advertising. In June 2016, the FTC brought an enforcement action against SmartClick Media LLC and its owner. The FTC alleged that SmartClick engaged in the...more
Starting a few years ago, the FTC began increasing its efforts to address online disclosures in new media. For example, in 2013, the FTC issued .com Disclosures: How To Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising, which...more
Starting a few years ago, the FTC began increasing its efforts to address online disclosures in new media. For example, in 2013, the FTC issued .com Disclosures: How To Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising, which...more
On May 13, 2015, in Conopco, Inc. v. Wells Enterprises, Inc., the Southern District of New York denied a motion to dismiss a claim for false advertising which arose from a claim that an ice-pop product was “original.” Wells...more
On April 20, 2015, in Nestle Purina Petcare Company v. The Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd., the Eastern District of Missouri denied a motion to dismiss claims for false and misleading advertising brought against the advertising...more
In Couture v. Playdom, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the use of a mark on a website to offer services is not use in commerce sufficient to support an actual-use service mark application. As a result, the Court affirmed...more
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court in POM Wonderful LLC v. The Coca Cola Co. (June 12, 2014) held that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) does not preclude a private party from bringing a Lanham Act claim...more
In Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (March 25, 2014), the Supreme Court unanimously held that "to invoke the Lanham Act’s cause of action for false advertising, a plaintiff must plead (and ultimately...more
On July 29, 2014, the Second Circuit decided a Lanham Act false advertising case that clarified the circuit’s jurisprudence on demonstrating consumer confusion and competitive injury. In Merck Eprova AG v. Gnosis S.P.A. and...more