The Advertising Law Blog provides commentary and news on developing legal issues in advertising, promotional marketing, Internet, and privacy law. This blog is sponsored by the Advertising, Marketing & Promotions group at Olshan. The practice is geared to servicing the needs of the advertising, promotional marketing, and digital industries with a commitment to providing personal, efficient and effective legal service.
Andrew Lustigman will speak at the 35th BAA Annual Marketing Law Conference in Chicago, IL on November 18-20, 2013.
A retailer of replacement contact lenses brought Lanham Act trademark-infringement action against competitor that used Internet advertising in which search engines displayed competitor's advertisement when customers performed a search using keywords that resembled retailer's registered service mark.
Andrew Lustigman will speak at the second annual HitPath Masters Conference in New Orleans, LA on September 29 - October 1, 2013.
In Gordon v. Softech International, decided on July 31, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit tacked the issue of whether someone who discloses information obtained from the department of motor vehicles should be responsible when the information is misused by the person who received the information.
The SEC recently adopted two final rules that have the potential to significantly impact private securities offerings conducted under Rule 506 of Regulation D under the Securities Act of 1933.
In Keim v. ADF MidAtlantic, LLC, decided on July 15, 2013 in the Southern District of Florida, the defendants were allowed to moot the threat of a class action by paying the plaintiff everything he demanded on his individual claim.
As class actions and other forms of litigation continue to plague corporate America as a major cost of doing business, businesses should be cognizant of one potent antidote that has repeatedly received judicial approval: mandatory arbitration clauses.
Trademark Owners Should Act to Register Their Trademarks with the Trademark Clearinghouse.
In Luskin v. Seminole Comedy, Inc., decided on June 19, 2013 in the Southern District of Florida, Judge Robert Scola denied a motion to dismiss a case concerning text messages, even though the plaintiff had provided his telephone number to the text sender.
In United States vs. Mortgage Investors Corp. of Ohio, filed in the Middle District of Florida on June 25, 2013, a home loan refinancing company agreed to pay a $7.5 million civil penalty for allegedly violating Do Not Call provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR).