Posts Tagged: "false advertising"

In responding to the unprecedented COVID-19 challenges, companies around the world are rushing to capitalize on the current crisis by advertising the effectiveness of their products in containing the virus spread. Among these ads and messages, some may be useful in building the public’s confidence and marketing effective products to consumers, but some may mislead and deceive desperate consumers into buying treatments and products without any scientific support. As fear and anxiety proliferate during this pandemic, fraudulent or false advertisements also surge and explode. Petitioners raise false advertising claims and try to stop misleading advertisements by seeking injunctions. However, the injunction standard in the false advertising context is still the subject of debate.

It has long been a fundamental tenet of advertising law that comments made to investors, and particularly those made before the commercial launch of a product or service, do not constitute the kind of “advertising” that is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau (NAD), and are outside the reach of the Lanham Act. That is because advertising law regulates communications that propose a commercial transaction; in contrast, the securities laws govern communications to investors that are designed to promote investments. A recent decision from the NAD has put a big crack in that jurisdictional wall, and threatens to breach the dam that has long shielded comments made in investor presentations from potential liability for false advertising.

Missouri made history in August 2018 when it became the first state to regulate the use of the word “meat” on product labels. The new legislation takes aim at companies selling plant-based meat alternatives. It also targets producers of lab-grown meat products, known as “clean meat” or “cell-based meat.”

On Friday, November 2nd, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a decision in Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, Inc. v. Rushmore Photo & Gifts, Inc., et. al. which reversed various parts of the lower court’s decision in the trademark infringement case brought by Sturgis, which claimed to own trademarks covering merchandise related to a well-known motorcycle rally which has taken place in Sturgis, SD, going back to 1938. While the appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial as a matter of law to the defendants’ as to Sturgis’ claims of deceptive trade practices, false advertising and trademark infringement claims, the Eighth Circuit reversed the lower court’s findings that various marks asserted by Sturgis were valid because it found that Sturgis didn’t provide the jury with sufficient proof regarding validity.

On July 27th, a jury verdict entered in the District of Delaware awarded $4.8 million in lost profit and reasonable royalty damages to Marlboro, MA-based medical technology company Hologic Inc. after the jury determined that two of its patents were infringed by Redwood City, CA-based medical device company Minerva Surgical. At issue in the case was a technology marketed by Minerva to treat women dealing with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB).

Alibaba alleges that defendant Alibabacoin (ABBC) Foundation has engaged in an unlawful scheme to misappropriate the Alibaba name in order to raise over $3.5 million in cryptoassets from investors. The complaint alleges that scheme was a part of an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) that is neither registered nor approved by U.S.

Grammy Award winning funk, soul band The Commodores—whose hit singles include Easy and Brick House—recently won a trademark infringement lawsuit against its ex-bandmate and founding member Thomas McClary, who left the band in 1984. The right to use The Commodores’ name and trademarks belongs to a company run by founding members William King and Walter Orange, a Florida appellate court has ruled.

In September 2014, a California woman named Linda Rubenstein sued Neiman Marcus over allegedly misleading price tags at their “Last Call” line of stores. In the case, Rubenstein alleged that the company misled consumers at its Last Call stores with prices tags that listed a cost “compared to” a fictitious higher price, designed to lure shoppers into thinking they are getting a deal. In December of 2014, U.S. District Judge S. James Otero dismissed Rubenstein’s suit with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim and failure to allege fraud with particularity. Just last week, her putative class action revived when a Ninth Circuit panel agreed that a lower court prematurely tossed her case.

The federal regulatory agency in charge of assessing health claims for goods and services sold to American consumers is the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the U.S. government’s main consumer protection agency. In the past few months alone, the FTC has taken action against a number of bogus health products which may seem obviously suspicious at first blush but have been successful in defrauding well-meaning consumers out of their money.