Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
§§ 32 and 43 of the Act (now known as 15 U.S.C. §§ 1124–1125) set out the remedies that can be sought when a trademark is infringed. Notably, Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act focuses on false advertising and unfair competition, providing a legal recourse for individuals and businesses. [10]
False advertising; Standing Majority: Scalia: Lanham Act: Standing to maintain a false advertising action under the Lanham Act is determined by a test which considers both zones of interest and proximate causation. Pom Wonderful v. Coca-Cola, Inc. 572 U.S. 102: June 12, 2014: 8–0: Procedural: False advertising; Private right of action ...
In 1946, Congress enacted the Lanham Act in order to govern the use of trademarks.Among its stated aims was the regulation of "commerce within the control of Congress by making actionable the deceptive and misleading use of marks in such commerce," [5] and provision was made for civil enforcement actions to be available for private parties in the federal courts.
[24] Laws about comparative advertising have changed in the United States; perhaps the most drastic change occurred with the 1946 Lanham Act, the backbone of all cases involving false advertisement. Marketing strategies have become more aggressive, however, and the provisions of the Lanham Act have become outdated.
The New Jersey Supreme Court handed a victory to both the plaintiffs and advocates of truth in advertising this week when it ruled that lawsuits against the maker of dietary supplement Relacore ...
On March 25, 2014, the US Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Sixth Circuit's holding that Static Control did have standing to sue under the Lanham Act. [3] The Court developed a new test for assessing standing in false advertising, rejecting the existing tests, including the Sixth Circuit's "reasonable interest test". [50]
[5]: 2 Therefore, there was no Lanham Act false advertising violation. [5]: 2–3 Trademark dilution – Tiffany also challenged eBay's practice constitute trademark dilution under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), as well as under New York General Business Law § 360-l. Specifically, Tiffany argued that eBay was liable for dilution by ...
Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case related to trademark law under the Lanham Act.In the 9–0 decision on judgement, the Court ruled that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement lawsuit is not required to demonstrate that the defendant willfully infringed on their trademark to claim lost profit damages.