助你竞争
当客户的品牌、信誉或市场地位受不实陈述或欺骗性广告威胁时,通常需要立即获得救济。飞翰曾成功地帮助客户迅速获得解决方案,包括限制令。我们精通《兰纳姆法案》(Lanham Act),洞察各种细微差异,包括虚假主张在内的各种诉讼主张,以及会威胁或已造成消费者混淆的欺骗性手法。
强有力的证据建立在技术和法律专长的坚实基础之上
当遭遇虚假和欺骗性广告申诉时,您需要一支经验丰富的诉讼团队,对所涉及的技术以及法律有深入的了解,针对纠纷提供多方面、战略性的方案。证明一支广告属于虚假宣传通常需要两个层面的专业知识——在技术上精通用以确认陈述的真伪性和调查的经验用以衡量对消费者的影响。飞翰律师事务所具有处理这些问题的独一无二的能力。近100名律师、学生律师和技术专家持有博士学位,400名专业人员拥有科学领域的本科学位。凭借我们的国际资源网络,再加上我们的技术背景,我们能够找到和保留世界顶尖的技术专家和合伙人,携手共同评估广告申诉、科学测试方法和统计分析。
我们同样擅长整合证明客户案件所需的调查证据。多年来,我们与众多消费者调查专家合作开发和利用各类问题的证据,包括混淆可能、淡化可能、通用性、第二含义、名誉以及广告的真伪性。此外,飞翰还能够战略性地调配语言学、市场营销、消费心理学、行业惯例、统计学和损害赔偿等领域的其他专家。综上,对于选择和配备在复杂技术问题上提供准确、可信和可理解证词的证人方面,我们的经验十分丰富。
广告申诉只是知识产权的一块拼图
飞翰在知识产权法的各个领域,包括商标、版权、不正当竞争、商业秘密及实用和外观设计专利上都具有丰富经验,能够制定互补战略,为您的公司多条战线上的产品提供最好的保护。虚假广告的诉讼通常同时伴随着商标或外观设计专利诉讼,我们的出庭律师利用在各个知识产权领域积累的几十年经验,集思广益,总体性地保护客户的利益。
在飞翰,我们清楚认识到胜利是通过多个渠道而来,并以多种形式呈现。我们拥有300多名诉讼律师,随时做好充分准备,凭借专业素质出席法院审讯和上诉。另一方面,我们也能够顺利取得早期动议结果,或在仲裁及和解谈判上取得满意结果,并且通常情况下,我们都是在审讯之前解决案件,为客户节省大量资金。简言之,我们带给您的成功诉讼结果就是让您以最具成本效益的方式达到您的业务目标。
At the lower court, Finnegan prevailed on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for client Subaru of America. In that suit, the plaintiff asserted trademark and copyright infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising against Subaru’s annual “Share the Love” holiday-season campaign, which donates money from car purchases to various buyer-designated national and local charities. Subaru’s campaign uses a particular logo comprised of a heart on a hand, and various other “love”-themed designs.
The plaintiff sought enhanced damages, punitive damages over $20 million, and attorneys’ fees. Subaru’s motion to dismiss was based largely on the facial dissimilarities between the parties’ respective designs, which the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted on all counts asserted in the complaint, without leave to further amend.
The plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the lower court’s decision after finding that the plaintiff did not plausibly allege any claim. The appeals court later denied plaintiff’s petition for rehearing. Consistent with the lower court’s opinion, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the marks at issue were so facially dissimilar that they could not plausibly create a likelihood of confusion, and affirmed the dismissal of the trademark dilution, copyright infringement, and false advertising claims for the same reasons, resulting in a complete win for Subaru.
16-16840, 9th Cir., Judges Lucero, Owens, Thomas
3:16-cv-03384, N.D. Cal., Judge Chesney
2:13-cv-04222, C.D. Cal., Judge Olguin
5:16-cv-00906, N.D. Cal., Judges Cousins, Freeman
1:13-cv-00707, S.D. Ohio, Judge Dlott
1:15-cv-00369, D. Md., Judge Blake
0:12-cv-62101, S.D. Fla., Judges Scola, Snow
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
Ad Law Buzz Blog
“Banning” a Banned Ingredients Claim: NAD’s Application (and Expansion) of the FTC’s Green Guides
March 18, 2024
Award/Ranking
Finnegan Tops the 2024 World Trademark Review 1000, Receiving New Regional Accolade
February 13, 2024
Press Release
Finnegan Adds Jenevieve Maerker to Its Trademark, Copyright, and Advertising Practice
April 19, 2023
Announcement
World Trademark Review Recognizes Three Finnegan Partners as Global Leaders
October 17, 2022
Announcement
Managing Intellectual Property Recognizes Three Finnegan Partners as Rising Stars
October 12, 2022
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.