In today’s increasingly global economy, trademark owners are more frequently butting up against the territorial limitations of trademark law. It has long been a matter of black letter law that trademark rights are...more
Last week, an appellate court held that a plaintiff has standing to bring a false association and false advertising claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, even though it did not use its mark or sell its competing...more
On March 23, 2016, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision in Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG, 84 F. Supp. 3d 490 (E.D. Va. 2015) and remanded the case....more
Bayer recently avoided a contempt finding concerning its Phillips’ Colon Health (“PCH”) probiotics advertising. Bayer advertised PCH as “Promot[ing] Overall Digestive Health” and “Help[ing] Defend Against Occasional...more
With EU Safe Harbor Invalidated, Companies Ask: What Now? - What happens now?: That is the question that businesses across the country are asking after the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) threw out the...more
A panel from the Seventh Circuit split from the Third and Eleventh Circuits and rejected what it described to be a “heightened” ascertainability requirement under Rule 23(b)(3). In Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, plaintiff...more
In the recent case of Gallagher v. Bayer AG, Case No. 14-cv-04601-WHO (N.D. Cal. March 10, 2015), the plaintiffs asserted that the defendants Bayer AG and related entities (collectively, “Bayer”) engaged in false advertising...more
On August 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed certification of a class action comprised of Florida purchasers of Bayer’s One-A-Day WeightSmart multivitamin. See Carrera v. Bayer Corp., No....more
In false advertising cases involving a wide range of consumer products, including dietary supplements and cosmetics, plaintiffs often allege that the manufacturer does not have adequate scientific “substantiation” for its...more