We have published a wide variety of trademark information on this trademark blog page. We hope that you find the information useful. However, if you have a trademark legal issue, the pages located on this website are no substitute for competent legal advice. Please send us an email, fill-out our contact form, or give one of our trademark attorneys a call. If you need to register a trademark with the USPTO or have a trademark issue, we can assist!
False advertising is a form of unfair competition under the Lanham Act. It occurs when a company makes false or misleading claims about its products or services in advertising or other commercial speech. False advertising can take many forms, including making false claims about the characteristics, benefits, or quality of a product or service, making misleading comparisons to other products or services, or using deceptive endorsements or testimonials.
The Lanham Act provides a cause of action for false advertising, which allows individuals and companies to bring a legal action against false advertisers. To prove false advertising as form of trademark infringement, the plaintiff must show that the advertising is false or misleading and that the false or misleading advertising has a material effect on the purchasing decision of consumers.
If the plaintiff prevails in a lawsuit for false advertising, they may be entitled to various remedies, such as injunctions, damages, and attorney’s fees. The plaintiff can also seek an injunction to stop the false advertising.
It’s important to note that the standard for false advertising under the Lanham Act is whether the advertising is likely to mislead a significant portion of consumers, even if the advertising is not intended to be misleading. This means that a company can be held liable for false advertising of a even if it did not intend to deceive consumers.
Examples of False Advertising Trademark Cases
Here are a few examples of trademark false advertising under the Lanham Act:
POM Wonderful LLC vs. Coca-Cola Co.: In the case of POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., POM accused Coca-Cola of falsely advertising its pomegranate-blueberry juice blend as being made mostly of pomegranate and blueberry juice, when it actually contained mostly apple and grape juice.
Skechers USA, Inc. vs. Nike, Inc.: In the case of Skechers USA, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., Skechers accused Nike of false advertising by claiming that its “Shape-ups” shoes provided health benefits, such as improved posture and weight loss, without sufficient scientific evidence.
Dannon Company, Inc. vs. General Mills, Inc.: In the case of Dannon Company, Inc. v. General Mills, Inc., Dannon accused General Mills of false advertising for claiming that its Yoplait yogurt contained “active cultures” when some of its products did not actually contain live and active cultures.
These are a few examples of the many cases in which companies have been accused of trademark false advertising under the Lanham Act.
Are you launching a new company or developing a new brand or product and need to clear and/or register a trademark? Are you an online seller enrolling in a brand registry program? Are you looking for help with another federal trademark matter? We can assist! Please do not hesitate to give us a call or fill out our contact form. There is absolutely no charge to schedule an initial consultation with one of our trademark attorneys.
NexTrend Legal, LLC, a trademark law firm with offices in Charleston, South Carolina and Jacksonville, Florida. Our trademark attorneys provide federal trademark services to businesses of all sizes, new start-ups, franchisors, inventors, product developers, online sellers and entrepreneurs throughout the US and internationally. Our federal trademark services include, but are not limited to, trademark search, trademark registration, trademark monitoring, trademark office actions, trademark oppositions, trademark renewals and more.
This website is for general information purposes only. The information on these pages should not be considered as legal advice. Testimonials reflect results achieved on behalf of one client, which does not necessarily reflect that similar results will be obtained for other clients. Under the rules of certain jurisdictions, this communication may be considered “Attorney Advertising.”