Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] 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).
*May exclude premium content
By Matthew Siegal
University of Massachusetts v. L’Oréal
Absent an express disclaimer or special definition of how a term is to be interpreted, it can be frustrating to get a court to reject the plain and ordinary meaning of claim language read in a vacuum, based on the subtleties of how a term is used in a patent or its prosecution history.
By Robert W. Clarida and Thomas Kjellberg
On July 7, 2022, the Southern District of Florida denied a motion to dismiss in Morford v. Cattelan, which began by posing the following question: “Can a banana taped to a wall be art?”
By Stephen M. Kramarsky and John Millson
In the absence of a federal statutory scheme specifically aimed at digital advertising practices, the courts have focused on consumer-facing issues covered by existing law, such as privacy, transparency, and deceptive or misleading advertising practices. But digital advertising technology can also present new challenges in copyright and trademark protection.
By Stan Soocher
How far back from accrual of a claim may a plaintiff reach for copyright damages?