This blog reports frequently on the troubles Syringemarketers get into with the FTC, State AGs, the NAD, under the Lanham Act, or from class actions based on making allegedly false statements about their products or their competitors’ products.  A recent $113 million jury verdict in Texas reminds us that the antitrust laws can come into play as well for such conduct, if an actor with monopoly or market power can be said to be unlawfully excluding its rivals by its advertising or marketing techniques. 

Retractable Technologies (“Retractable”) developed a disposable retractable point or “safety” syringe designed to reduce the risk of accidental needle sticks for health care workers and to eliminate the possibility that syringes would be reused.  Among other things, these features would help reduce the risk that health care workers would be exposed to the HIV virus and that used syringes would be re-used for illegal drug use.  Becton Dickinson (“BD”) possessed a dominant share of the existing conventional disposable syringe market.  In response to Retractable’s introduction of the safety syringe, BD introduced its own safety syringe.  Litigation involving claims of patent infringement, monopolization, restraint of trade, and false advertising ensued.
Continue Reading Ouch, Treble Damages in False Advertising Cases?

AppleThough the holiday gift-giving battle between Apple’s iPad and Amazon’s Kindle may have quieted recently, the ongoing legal war between the two technology giants continues. Last week, Amazon.com Inc. scored an opening round victory when a California federal judge granted its motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing Apple’s false advertising claim against the online retailer.

A quick update on the endorsement contract wars.  We previously blogged about a judge’s refusal to dismiss a breach of contract case involving a professional football players loss of an endorsement contract after making some controversial tweets about the death of Osama bin Laden.  The judge in that case held that the Company needed to

On May 9, 2012, Raceway Ford, Inc. was awarded $1,468,380 in attorneys’ fees plus costs against 14 named class representative plaintiffs in an automobile retail sales contract backdating class action case.The defendant was able to obtain this award because the statute, under which the plaintiffs sued, the California Automobile Sales Finance Act, has a mutual

In a closely watched battle, the Fourth Circuit breathed life back into Rosetta Stone Ltd.’s trademark infringement and dilution claims against Google, Incorporated stemming from its AdWords program.  Google’s AdWords program allows advertisers to purchase “keywords” that trigger the advertiser’s ads when the keyword is entered as a search term in Google.  In a series