Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Trademarks Making Advertising Claims Create Sticky Situations
A brand that uses its trademark as an advertising claim may find itself in a sticky legal situation. A recent case before the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau (NAD) evaluated SharkNinja's "Foodi NeverStick" cookware's trademark and advertising claims. The case illustrates the complexity of using a trademark that describes product attributes.
Brands are accustomed to clearing trademarks to determine whether they violate a third party's intellectual property. To that end, they may request their trademark attorney evaluate trademark searches and advise regarding the mark's availability for use and/or registration. In so doing, their counsel will consider the proposed trademark's distinctiveness as well as any likelihood of confusion it creates in the marketplace. A third factor for evaluation may also be relevant. Could the trademark also be an advertising claim? Does the trademark convey a false or misleading express or implied claim about the product or service?
SharkNinja Operating LLC sells and markets a line of non-stick cookware products under its brand name "Foodi NeverStick." Sunbeam Products, a competitor to SharkNinja, challenged the product name and the advertising claims before the NAD. In its national advertising, SharkNinja claimed that NeverStick cookware "never sticks, chips or flakes." It also encouraged consumers to "grab the cookware that never sticks." Finally, it asserted that the products had a "lifetime guarantee."
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.