Search Results (3571)
Documents on advertising marketing
Show: results per page
|U.S. Supreme Court Settles Lanham Act Standing Conflict|
Bruce Colbath; Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP;
April 2, 2014, previously published on March 27, 2014On March 25, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Static Control Components, Inc. had the right to sue Lexmark International Inc. under the Lanham Act’s false advertising prong. In doing so, the Court established a new Lanham Act standing test, rejecting several different tests circuit...
|SCOTUS Rules Indirect Competitors May Bring 43(a) False Advertising Action|
Richard J. Leighton; Keller and Heckman LLP;
April 1, 2014, previously published on March 26, 2014On March 26, 2014, the Supreme Court of the U.S. ruled unanimously, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, that a company - whether or not it is a direct competitor - has standing to bring a false advertising action under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act where it alleges that it lost sales and/or had its...
|U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Standing Requirements for Lanham Act False Advertising Claim|
Elisabeth A. Langworthy, Daniel C. Neustadt; Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP;
March 28, 2014, previously published on March 26, 2014A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held Tuesday that a plaintiff may bring a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), even where the plaintiff is not a direct competitor of the defendant. A false advertising plaintiff need only allege “injury to a commercial...
|Court Upholds City's Ability to Regulate an Advertising Sign After Finding the City's Decision was Supported by Substantial Evidence|
Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann Girard A Law Corporation;
March 25, 2014, previously published on March 19, 2014After over 35 years of advertising its business with a 35 foot pole sign, the Court of Appeal agreed with the City of West Sacramento that the time had come for U-Haul to reduce the sign's height to 12 feet in compliance with a local ordinance. U-Haul contended that Business and Professions Code...
|Maryland District Court Grants Summary Judgment for Defendant-Insurer in Personal and Advertising Injury Coverage Case|
Jhanelle A. Graham; Semmes Bowen Semmes A Professional Corporation;
March 24, 2014, previously published on March 2014All Class Construction, LLC v. Mutual Benefit Ins. Co. was a case brought originally in Maryland state court and removed, on the basis of diversity, to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Plaintiffs All Class Construction, LLC (“All Class”), William Chaffman,...
|NAD Advertising Policy Purposefully Differs from FTC Legal Standards for Substantiation|
A. Wes Siegner; Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, P.C.;
March 19, 2014, previously published on March 16, 2014Does meeting the FTC legal standard for claim substantiation protect claims from action by the National Advertising Division (“NAD”)? If you think the answer should be “yes,” read on.
|Yahoo! Unhappy With TCPA Ruling; Seeks Reconsideration|
Scott A. Shaffer; Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP;
March 18, 2014, previously published on March 6, 2014In Sherman v. Yahoo! Inc., decided on February 3, 2014 in the Southern District of California, Yahoo! failed to convince the court that a lawsuit against it should fail because Yahoo! did not use an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) to send text messages, as that term is defined under the...
|FTC Settlement Highlights Lead Generation "Warning Signs"|
Ellen Traupman Berge, Jonathan L. Pompan; Venable LLP;
March 14, 2014, previously published on March 12, 2014A Federal Trade Commission (FTC) settlement with a lead buyer highlights the potential pitfalls with using lists from lead generators without considering how the lists were compiled or the requirements under the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). For lead generators, the settlement also provides a...
|On Deck, Telemarketing Sales Rule Regulatory Review|
Jonathan L. Pompan; Venable LLP;
March 12, 2014, previously published on March 11, 2014The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recently announced that it intends to begin review of, and solicit comments on the Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”). The opportunity to provide comments will be a significant opportunity for marketers to weigh-in on one of the FTC’s...
|My Brother’s TCPA Keeper? Recent Cases Highlight Third-Party Risk Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act|
Wilson G. Barmeyer, Keith J. Barnett, Thomas M. Byrne, Amanda R. Callais, Lewis S. Wiener; Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP;
March 12, 2014, previously published on March 11, 2014Early 2014 has produced a series of court decisions highlighting third-party liability issues under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In February, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case about liability for junk faxes made by an alleged agent, and other recent cases have...