ZESTY PAWS LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants.
United States District Court, S.D. New York.June 4, 2024.
United States District Court, S.D. New York.June 4, 2024.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate is a not for profit organization that publishes reports on among other things, hate speech and disinformation on social media. Its reports contain the “big if true” allegations that a small number of social media accounts, such as Twitter, are responsible for a disproportionate percentage of objectionable conduct. For…
Lederman v. The Hershey Company, No. 1:2021cv04528 – Document 43 (N.D. Ill. 2022)
Plaintiff asserts that hot fudge topping would contain the ingredients essential to hot fudge – cream and whole milk. She asserts that the quality of fudge depends on the amount and type of fat-contributing ingredients and that those fat ingredients are typically…
Defendant’s vanilla bean ice cream contains specks of vanilla bean. Plainitff alleges that the specks contain no flavor, and that the vanilla flavor is derived from vanillin and synthetic vanillin. IT might be the case that very little of the flavor comes from the vanilla beans as opposed as from the extracts, but there…
Plaintiff extracts spring water. One defendant allegedly extracts well water, which it misrepresents as spring water to other defendants, who are bottlers, and who also misrepresent the water as spring water.
Applying Lexmark, court holds that bottler defendants’ alleged false statements do not proximately injury plaintiff (as opposed to the false statements by extractor…
Law firm LegalForce RAPC is the largest filer of trademarks in the U.S.. It has filed several lawsuits against document preparation services, generally premised on the allegation that these firms are engaged in the unlicensed practice of law.
In this action against document preparation service TM411, LegalForce’s false advertising claim was dismissed as it…
Anthem Sports LLC v. Under the Weather, LLC, 17cv596 (D. Conn. March 6 2018)
Patent and trademark dispute relating to small tents for viewing outdoor sports. As 43(B)log points out, the judge used the term SPORTSPOD generically in the decision, which doesn’t bode well for the trademark claim.
Calling something a shoddy knockoff is…
Defendant allegedly ran photos of plaintiff models, to promote defendant’s resorts. Discussion of what tort this might be (false advertisement, unjust enrichment), and what it might not be (negligence per se).
Also, complaint was a few hundred pages too long.
[embeddoc url=”https://www.schwimmerlegal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/833/2016/05/caliente-motion-to-dismiss-1.pdf”]
. . . or when the HAAS mark is the housemark. I can stop making horrible puns any time I want to. 43blog summary here.
[embeddoc url=”https://www.schwimmerlegal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/833/2016/03/haas-door-v-haas-garage-door-ND-Ohio-1.pdf”]
Collecting permit fees from homeowners, then not filing for the permits, is likely not compliance with ‘strictest industry standards.’
43(a)(1)(B)
Large damage award in 'lead paint removal' case
S. Carolina
http://t.co/yyGDL4U0py
— TrademarkBlog (@TrademarkBlog) September 9, 2014