Search Results (3586)
Documents on advertising marketing
Show: results per page
|POM Wonderful's Decertification Decision Will Be Hard to Swallow for the Plaintiffs' Class Action Bar|
Bety Javidzad, Gregory J. Sater, Daniel S. Silverman; Venable LLP;
April 3, 2014, previously published on March 2014On March 25, 2014, Judge Dean Pregerson, of the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, decertified a nationwide class of consumers in a class action brought against POM Wonderful LLC over allegedly false and misleading health claims related to its pomegranate juice. Judge Pregerson's...
|A (POM) Wonderful Result For Consumer Class Action Defendants|
Paul Seeley; Jones Day;
April 3, 2014, previously published on March 26, 2014On March 25, 2014, the court in In re: POM Wonderful LLC Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. ML 10-02199 DDP (C.D. Cal.), granted a motion by defendant POM Wonderful LLC (“POM”) to decertify a previously certified class of consumers who purchased certain POM juice...
|Court Issues Sweet Ruling for Plaintiffs in Mislabeling Action - Ignorance That “Evaporated Cane Juice” Is An Added Sugar Not “Implausible”|
Robin Achen; Jones Day;
April 3, 2014, previously published on March 26, 2014In Morgan v. Wallaby Yogurt Co., Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied defendant’s motion to dismiss a class action complaint alleging violations of the UCL, FAL, and CLRA for mislabeling yogurt products, but struck plaintiffs’ prayer for...
|Unanimous Supreme Court Articulates New Test for Standing in Lanham Act False Advertising Cases|
Kristen Grace Hilton, Jonathan A. Loeb; Bingham McCutchen LLP;
April 3, 2014, previously published on March 31, 2014On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court articulated a new test for determining who has standing to bring a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act. The Lanham Act permits claims by “any person” likely to be damaged by a defendant’s false advertising but implies that a plaintiff...
|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...
|Medical Services Advertising - to Be or Not to Be?|
Irina Akimova; Capital Legal Services;
April 2, 2014, previously published on February 7, 2014Starting from January 1, 2014, amendments to Part 8 of Article 24 of Federal Law No.38-FZ “On advertising” (hereinafter the “Advertising Law”) dated 13.03.2006 has come into effect.
|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,...