Examples of False Designation of Origin in a sentence
See Rebecca Tushnet, No Mark, No False Designation of Origin Is Still the Rule in NY, Rebecca Tushnet’s 43(B) Blog, http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2016/04/no-mark-no- false-designation-of-origin.html (Apr.
Fieldpiece's False Marking, False Designation of Origin, False Advertising of Twin Rivers' patent numbers on Fieldpiece's hard copy and Internet images of its Packaging, User Manual and Promotional Flyer has caused confusion among consumers, retailers and distributors and is likely to cause further confusion.
WNC is seeking damages under Counts 1 and 2 (Trademark Infringement and False Designation of Origin), Count 6 (Abuse of Process), Count 7 (Civil Action under the Crime Victims Relief Act based on intimidation and conversion), Count 8 (Breach of Contract), and Count 9 (Fraud).
APT’s false advertising claim survives the Rule 12(b)(6) challenge.2. False Designation of Origin A false designation of origin claim is similar to a false advertising claim; indeed, APT argues that “[h]ere, the [false advertising and false designation of origin] analyses collapseinto one another because the heart of VWR’s deceptive practices—promoting its products as a continuation of the CRITICAL COVER line under a new name—encompasses both false advertising and false designation of origin,” APT Resp.
Plaintiff has asserted against Defendant Global the following claims: Count II for violation of Pennsylvania’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act; Count III for tortious interference with prospective and contractual relationships; Count IV for libel and slander; Count VI for False Designation of Origin and Unfair Competition, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A); Count VIII for common law unfaircompetition; and Count X for Federal Copyright Infringement, 17 U.S.C. § 501.
The suit alleged: 1) Federal Trademark Counterfeiting and Infringement; 2) Federal Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin; 3) Common Law Unfair Competition; and 4) violation of the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The counterclaims include counts for False Designation of Origin and False and/or Misleading Descriptions under the Lanham Act – 15 U.S.C. § 1125; Trademark Infringement under Georgia Common Law and O.C.G.A. § 23-2-55; Declaratory Judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.; Cancellation of Trademark Registration under 15 U.S.C. § 1119 et seq.; Unjust Enrichment; Quantum Meruit; Deceptive Trade Practices under O.C.G.A. § 10-1-370 et.
Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to summary judgment on their Trademark Infringement claim, False Designation of Origin or Sponsorship, False Advertising, and Trade Dress Infringement claim, and its Common Law Trademark Infringement claim.
Id.While the TTAB proceedings progressed, Plaintiff filed an action in this Court, bringing the following claims: Federal Trademark Infringement pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1114; Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, and False and Misleading Representations pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition under Va. Code§§ 59.1-92.12, 59.1-92.13; and Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition under Virginia Common Law; and Accounting under 15 U.S.C. § 1117.
ZeniMax’s False Designation of Origin Claim is Barred by Dastar The gravamen of ZeniMax’s false designation of origin claim is difficult to discern but appears to rest on the allegation that “Defendants wrongfully held out ZeniMax’s intellectual property as their own” (ECF 968 at 4) when “the Oculus Rift Kickstarter video[] misleadingly attribute[d] Carmack’s work at ZeniMax to Oculus.” (ECF 963 at 20).1 That claim is plainly barred by Dastar v.