§Why CasetextPricing

Nestle Health Science-Pamlab. et al v. Virtus Pharmaceuticals, LLC

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Count II, Contributory False Advertising

10 Cited authorities

  1. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

    572 U.S. 118 (2014)   Cited 2,932 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the respondent could not "obtain relief" under § 1125 "without evidence of injury proximately caused by [the petitioner's] alleged misrepresentations"

  2. Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories

    456 U.S. 844 (1982)   Cited 1,273 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that secondary liability for trademark infringement arises when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe

  3. Merck Eprova AG v. Gnosis S.P.A.

    760 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2014)   Cited 193 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Finding that where "a plaintiff has met its burden of proving deliberate deception in the context of a two-player market, it is appropriate to utilize a presumption of injury," and distinguishing from non-comparative advertising cases, where "the injury 'accrues equally to all competitors; none is more likely to suffer from the offending broadcasts than any other,'" meaning that a plaintiff must offer "'some indication of actual injury and causation' . . . to ensure that plaintiff's injury is not speculative"

  4. Gordon & Breach Science Publishers S.A. v. American Institute of Physics

    859 F. Supp. 1521 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)   Cited 228 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that scientific journal's publication of scientific-journal rankings by cost of journal per thousand characters and times cited is noncommercial speech

  5. Suntree Techs., Inc. v. Ecosense Int'l, Inc.

    693 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2012)   Cited 124 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the legal analysis is the same for violations of the Lanham Act and common law infringement and unfair competition

  6. Merck Eprova AG v. Gnosis S.p.A.

    901 F. Supp. 2d 436 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that a plaintiff has Article III standing — but not statutory standing — to bring state law false advertising claims because "a manufacturer ... is injured [for Article III purposes] when a competitor falsely advertises that its chemically distinct product is identical to the manufacturer's product"

  7. Merck Eprova AG v. Brookstone Pharmaceuticals, LLC

    920 F. Supp. 2d 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)   Cited 55 times
    Holding that labels and package inserts distributed to pharmaceutical databases "constitute advertising under the Lanham Act"

  8. Societe Des Hotels Meridien, Meridien, S.A. v. Lasalle Hotel Operating Partnership, L.P.

    380 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 70 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding allegations sufficient to state a likelihood of confusion but not addressing Polaroid factors

  9. Mini Maid Services v. Maid Brigade Systems

    967 F.2d 1516 (11th Cir. 1992)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that under certain circumstances, "[l]iability for trademark infringement can extend beyond those entities that actually perform the acts of infringement"

  10. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,753 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system