Tag Archives: promotion&quot

supplement guide isn't "advertising or promotion" under the Lanham Act, even w/undisclosed affiliation

Ariix, LLC v. NutriSearch Corp., 2019 WL 1040135, No. 17CV320-LAB (BGS) (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2019)Previous iteration discussed here. Arrix competes fiercely with Usana in the nutritional supplement market.  NutriSearch publishes the NutriSearch Comparative Guide to Nutritional Supplements, a guide … Continue reading

Posted in Advertising Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Claims in contracts aren't "advertising or promotion"

Segerdahl Corp. v. American Litho, Inc., No. 17-cv-3015, 2019 WL 157924 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2019)This opinion deals with Lanham Act/coordinate state law counterclaims by American Litho against Segerdahl. The parties compete within the direct mail service market, a subset … Continue reading

Posted in Advertising Law | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Threat letters aren't "advertising or promotion"

Luxpro Corp. v. Apple Inc., 2011 WL 1086027 (N.D. Cal.) Luxpro and Apple compete to sell mp3 players. In previous scuffles, Luxpro was forced to abandon the name "Super Shuffle" and use "Super Tangent" instead for one of its products … Continue reading

Posted in Advertising Law | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Threat letters aren't "advertising or promotion"

Luxpro Corp. v. Apple Inc., 2011 WL 1086027 (N.D. Cal.) Luxpro and Apple compete to sell mp3 players. In previous scuffles, Luxpro was forced to abandon the name "Super Shuffle" and use "Super Tangent" instead for one of its products … Continue reading

Posted in Advertising Law | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Threat letters aren't "advertising or promotion"

Luxpro Corp. v. Apple Inc., 2011 WL 1086027 (N.D. Cal.) Luxpro and Apple compete to sell mp3 players. In previous scuffles, Luxpro was forced to abandon the name "Super Shuffle" and use "Super Tangent" instead for one of its products … Continue reading

Posted in Advertising Law | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment