Examples of False Designation of Origin in a sentence
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.
Additionally, Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants for Federal Service Mark Counterfeiting (Count I), Federal Service Mark Infringement (Count II), Federal Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin (Count III), and Common Law Trademark and Service Mark Infringement and Unfair Competition and Injury to Business Reputation (Count IV) are based on Defendants’ alleged misuse of the GLASSDOCTOR® Marks.
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant is liable for: (I) False Designation of Origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (II) Breach of Contract; (III) Promissory Estoppel; and request (IV) Declaratory Judgment on the RadTherm Software.
IGPI also argues that a new trial is required on Count II, Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin, 18 U.S.C. § 1125(a), because there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of a “likelihood of confusion” and the jury’s special verdict was irreconcilably inconsistent.
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.
Id. In contrast, JuryInstruction No. 13, on Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin, establishes no such prior use defense.
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.
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.
Moving on, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants for Federal Service Mark Counterfeiting (Count I), Federal Service Mark Infringement (Count II), Federal Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin (Count III), and Common Law Trademark and Service Mark Infringement and Unfair Competition and Injury to Business Reputation (Count IV) lack any indication of irreparable loss or damage.
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).