Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A battle between two dietary supplement manufacturers has revived interested in the intersection between the Lanham Act and federal labeling regulations. The issue: can an advertiser challenge a competitor’s product label for false advertising under the Lanham Act if it complies with applicable federal regulations? The Supreme Court of the United States answered the question affirmatively in 2014 with regard to food products, and now the 11th Circuit has weighed in with regard to dietary supplements. In Hi-Tech Pharms, Inc. v HBA Intl’s Corp, 2018 WL 6314282, No. 17-13884 (11th Cir. Dec 4, 2018), the Circuit Court ruled that a Lanham Act claim for unfair or deceptive advertising could proceed even if a supplement’s label had complied with the requirements of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).
By Erin Hennessy, Annie Allison and Logan Kotler
Copyright, Fortnite and the Ability to Protect How You Shake Your Groove Thing
The U.S. Supreme Court just crashed the copyright world’s latest dance party — stepping on the toes of a soiree of copyright infringement lawsuits against videogame developer Epic Games, the creator of Fortnite.
By John P. Isacson
IPRs have now been conducted for several years, and litigation has ensued over the procedures by which they are conducted. Decisions have been rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which have resolved some issues, created others, and altered procedures.
By Amanda H. Wilcox
Social media is growing up, and this means that brands of all sizes and across all industries are using social media as part of their marketing strategy. However, courts have confirmed that the basic tenets of intellectual property law and advertising law still apply. The following guidelines stem from common questions that clients often have in the area of social media marketing.
By Jeff Ginsberg and Zhiqiang Liu
Federal Circuit Declines to Follow Patent Office’s Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance In Affirming Trial Court’s Decision That Claims Are Directed to Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter