allegations of "use on a website" don't plausibly allege TM confusion

Blue Water Innovations, LLC v. Fettig, No. 18-60671-Civ-Scola, 2019 WL 1904589 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 8, 2019)Quick reminder that the Eleventh Circuit hasn’t formally recognized initial interest confusion.  That said, at least in a complaint with fewer problems, simply alleging “consumer confusion” might have been enough for some courts.Blue Water makes a fat reducing device; it has related patents and a trademark registration for Ultraslim, for use on fat reduction and skin rejuvenation devices. Blue Water alleged that defendants stole its patented technology to sell “knockoff” fat reducing devices and that they were improperly using Ultraslim on their website “in a manner that falsely associates the Fettig and Vevazz device with those of Blue Water.” Patent infringement: failed to state a claim because the complaint didn’t name a single claim in the Blue Water patents or explain how the defendants’ product infringes on any…

Read more detail on Recent Advertising Law posts –

This entry was posted in Advertising Law and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply