Search results
The Lanham Act, enacted in 1946 and significantly amended sev-eral times since, establishes federal trademark law as well as a private cause of action for false advertising more generally.6 Along with pro-hibiting infringement of registered trademarks, the Lanham Act pro-tects unregistered trademarks and indications of source against con-
2 cze 2023 · To fall within the “zone of interest” of the Lanham Act, a false advertising plaintiff must allege an injury to “a commercial interest in reputation or sales.”. For proximate causation, the plaintiff must show “economic or reputational injury” flowing directly from deception created by the defendant’s advertising.
7 sty 2021 · The Lanham Act provides for three categories of damages that the court may award to a successful trademark infringement Plaintiff: (1) Actual Damages, (2) Disgorgement of the Infringer’s Profits, and (3) Attorney’s Fees and Costs.
The Lanham Act, codified under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1129, 1141, prescribes how the owner of a trademark is to register such a trade-mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.1 Less popularly known as the Trademark Act of 1946, Congress enacted this statute to ensure consumer protection with the goal of organizing trademark laws alread...
The Lanham Act provides civil liability for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, cybersquatting, and false advertising. The act gives U.S. district courts nonexclusive jurisdiction over these lawsuits, meaning that plaintiffs may choose to file such lawsuits either in federal or state court.
This article describes the contours of federal false advertising suits, and addresses several issues unique to false advertising litigation involving prescription and OTC drugs. False Advertising Under the Lanham Act. False advertising suits typically are brought under the federal trademark statute known as the Lanham Act.
• In order to receive damages, a plaintiff must generally prove: – Infringement (a Lanham Act Violation) – Actual Injury (but lack of actual harm does not preclude award of defendant’s profits) 15
