Trademark Law Briefs

a summary of recent 9th Circuit trademark decisions

Archive for the ‘False Endorsement’ Category

Promotional Press Releases are Commercial Speech

Wednesday, December 9th, 2009

General Charles E. “Chuck” Yeager (Ret.) v. Cingular Wireless LLC et al., 673 F.Supp.2d 1089 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Back in July of 2008, TMLB reported on a case between Gen. Chuck Yeager and AT&T.  Cingular (acquired by AT&T) referenced Yeager’s breaking the sound barrier in a press release on its technology to provide cellular service after disasters.  Yeager sued based on missappropriation of his likeness and AT&T demurred.  The court ruled Yeager had pleaded sufficiently and denied AT&T’s motion.  Read the original post here.

Well, AT&T is back and this time, it’s aiming an MSJ. (more…)

Posted in California law, False Endorsement, likelihood of confusion | No Comments »

Referring to famous people in product press releases- beware a false implication of endorsement

Thursday, July 3rd, 2008

Yeager v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 2008 US Dist. LEXIS 46449 (E.D. Cal. 2008) 

Ruling: Defendant’s motion to dismiss on first amendment grounds denied because the complaint plead facts on which defendant’s actions could be considered commercial speech.  Defendant’s claim that plaintiff’s achievements in breaking the sound barrier are within the public domain and therefore not subject to trademark law is unfounded because a false endorsement claim is actionable under the Lanham Act as plead by plaintiff.  Finally, defendant’s defenses regarding incidental use and permissible fair use are fact specific and therefore cannot be grounds to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint as a matter of law when plaintiff has plead sufficient facts.

(more…)

Posted in False Endorsement, First Amendment, likelihood of confusion | No Comments »

    Avatar Legal
  • You are currently browsing the archives for the False Endorsement category.

  • Pages

    • About Avatar Legal, PC
    • about the author
  • Archives

    • September 2010
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • March 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • July 2008
    • June 2008
    • May 2008
    • January 2008
    • December 2007
    • November 2007
  • Categories

    • attorneys fees (7)
    • California law (10)
    • Cancellation (2)
    • Conflict of Interest (1)
    • consumer surveys (1)
    • Counterfeiting (7)
    • Cybersquatting (3)
    • Declaratory Action (2)
    • default judgment (6)
    • descriptive/suggestive (1)
    • dilution (3)
    • Discovery (4)
    • Distinctive (1)
    • Factual Analysis (6)
    • False Endorsement (2)
    • First Amendment (4)
    • First Sale (1)
    • Forum/Venue (2)
    • Functionality (3)
    • Genericism (4)
    • Injunction (5)
    • intent to use (1)
    • Jurisdiction (4)
    • Laches (5)
    • Licensing (4)
    • likelihood of confusion (10)
    • Procedure (6)
    • secondary meaning (6)
    • statutory damages (3)
    • trade dress (3)
    • Uncategorized (10)
    • Use (1)
    • Validity of Mark (4)

  • Syndication

    • RSS Feed
    • RSS
    • Atom
    • Comments RSS

Trademark Law Briefs is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).