Givenchy Woman Silksatin Blouse With Contrast Bands Mint Size 36 Givenchy Choice Cheap Online aBaytyMaN0

Givenchy Woman Silk-satin Blouse With Contrast Bands Mint Size 36 Givenchy Choice Cheap Online aBaytyMaN0
Givenchy Woman Silk-satin Blouse With Contrast Bands Mint Size 36 Givenchy
Cheap Sale Sneakernews Essential Top Diamond Ruby Indian Bride by VIDA VIDA Sale Buy Is6Qlp1nM
Womens Vikas S/l Top Sleeveless Vest Vila Outlet With Credit Card Sale In China Discount Excellent Sale Low Price Fee Shipping A0FUYW8f9
colour block asymmetric drape blouse Black Fabiana Filippi Manchester For Sale Q19hodjw






Zenica chevron print dress Sportmax Footlocker Finishline Online Buy Cheap Get Authentic 2018 Newest Sale Online Discount 100% Authentic Clearance With Paypal CKgXT3Cfm
Free Shipping Official Site Find Great Womens Bella Ibiza Bikini Set Yshey Cost Cheap Online rjmzrKx
FindLaw For Legal Professionals
Cheap Sale Authentic Genuine Sale Online TROUSERS Casual trousers M Double B Cheap 100% Original From China Low Shipping Fee Clearance High Quality ieVWfVw4t
| sleeveless blouse Red Marni Cheap Sale Discounts s74NF1
Welcome. Edit Your Profile | Log Out
Javascript is disabled. Please enable Javascript to log in.
24 3169

"Compare our product to the leading brand!" is a familiar refrain in the advertising world. Using a competitor's trademark in your company's advertising can be a highly effective positioning tool and may lead to significant economic gains. Under certain conditions, use of a competitor's trademark in your advertising is legal in the United States. This type of use can showcase specific strengths or features of your company's products or services, in direct relation to those of your competitor. When well-executed, such an advertising campaign may result in increased market share and revenue. However, because comparative advertising may cast your competitor's trademark and related products or services in a less favorable light or highlight qualities that your competitor does not want to emphasize, comparative advertisements are often closely scrutinized.

Under U.S. law, use of a competitor's trademark in accurate and non-deceptive comparative advertising is legal and does not constitute trademark infringement. In fact, truthful comparative advertisements – even those that display a competitor's trademark, are considered to be informational for consumers and beneficial to competition, provided that the competitor's mark is accurately depicted. Legally permissible comparative advertising must unequivocally convey that the competitor's products or services sold under its mark(s) are independent from yours, and your advertising reference to a competitor's trademark must neither imply an affiliation nor explicitly or implicitly endorse your products. When using your competitor's trademark in advertising, your company should consider the following:

On the other hand, what should you do if your company's trademark is unfavorably featured in a comparative ad? If your company believes that its trademark has been misused in connection with a competitor's ad, there are several venues in which it may seek relief, including: the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus ("NAD"), and the courts (under state or federal trademark and anti-dilution laws). Each of these bodies has different oversight authorities and offers different remedies.

As the federal agency with primary responsibility for regulating trade, the FTC encourages comparative advertising, including use of a competitor's mark and only restrains comparative advertising that constitutes "unlawful or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." Allegations that a company is engaging in unfair or deceptive advertising may come to the attention of the FTC from several sources, including complaints from competitors, consumers, other governmental agencies, or the FTC's own monitoring and investigative efforts. Regardless of the source of a comparative advertising claim, the FTC ultimately has the sole authority to determine whether to investigate or take any enforcement action.

In order for the FTC to bring an enforcement action for deception, it must determine that (1) a representation, omission or practice exists that is likely to mislead consumers; (2) the representation is misleading from the perspective of the consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances; and (3) the representation, omission or practice is "material", that is, likely to affect the consumer's conduct or purchasing decision with regard to a product or service. Once the FTC has determined that it has sufficient basis for proceeding with an enforcement action, it may act in one of two ways:

Apart from the FTC, other federal and state entities, including the federal Food and Drug Administration and state Attorneys General, have the power to regulate trade practices. As part of their investigative and enforcement authority, these entities may impose monetary fines and/or curtail objectionable trade practices through consent decrees. Given that the standards of unfair or deceptive trade practices impact the enforcement actions of all these entities, the FTC comparative advertising guidelines discussed above offer practical guidelines for generally avoiding an enforcement action.

In an effort to provide an alternative to government oversight of advertising and to maintain consumer trust in advertising, the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau (the "NAD") was created as a self-regulating body. The NAD provides an opportunity for competitors and consumers to challenge the truthfulness or accuracy of an advertisement and to resolve issues efficiently (NAD challenges typically last 60 days). The NAD will only consider advertising that is national in scope and is not the subject of a pending litigation, court order or government agency consent decree. Anytime after a complainant has filed an NAD challenge, the respondent advertiser may withdraw the advertisement at issue. If the advertiser also confirms in writing at this time that it will not run similar ads, the NAD will not take further action. If, however, a challenge proceeds, the NAD will review materials submitted by both parties and will issue a decision. Although a decision by the NAD is not binding – it is considered a "recommendation" – the NAD works closely with the FTC and may refer the subject advertising if it believes its decision has not resolved the underlying issue(s).

It should be noted that some types of competitive advertising that reference a competitor's trademark will not require claim substantiation. Acommon example is known as "puffery," which is a general opinion statement that a consumer will not take literally. In one NAD challenge, Pepperidge Farm ran an advertising campaign challenging consumers to compare the ingredients in Pepperidge Farm and Heinz gravies, claiming that "Heinz would rather you didn't." Heinz brought a challenge before the NAD based in part on Pepperidge Farm's use of its name in the described manner. Pepperidge Farm claimed that this statement was classic salesmanship or puffery because no one would really believe that Pepperidge Farm would have actual knowledge of its competitor's mindset. The NAD agreed with Pepperidge Farm, and noted in its decision that the statement was puffery because it was just an "introduction" to the message being communicated in the commercials. See

Under federal law, false suggestions of endorsement or sponsorship or misuse of a trademark are actionable under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a). The Lanham Act allows any person likely to be damaged by another's false or misleading representations of fact in commercial advertising or improper use of a trademark to sue in federal court, seeking injunctive relief, damages and, in exceptional cases, attorneys' fees. In order to obtain monetary damages, a plaintiff must show that consumers were actually deceived by the defendant's false advertising and that such advertising caused either actual economic loss to the plaintiff or a decrease in the value of plaintiff's trademark. As with cases brought before the NAD, statements that utilize a competitor's trademark but are otherwise of general opinion (including puffery) are not actionable under the Lanham Act. Additionally, there are other state trademark and federal and state anti-dilution laws under which a party may also seek relief from a competitor who inappropriately uses its trademark.

Courts consistently allow a competitor's trademark to be used in advertising where its use is accurate and not deceptive. For example, Nabisco planned to launch a new candy, LIFE SAVERS DELITES, that would compete with August Storck K.G.'s WERTHER'S ORIGINAL candies. The proposed LIFE SAVERS DELITES packaging was to bear the words "25 percent LOWER IN CALORIES THAN WERTHER'S ORIGINAL CANDY." Storck sued, claiming that Nabisco's planned use violated, among other things, the WERTHER'S ORIGINAL trademark. The court disagreed and allowed the LIFE SAVERS DELITES candy to proceed to market, holding that the proposed use would not cause a likelihood of confusion – namely, that consumers would understand that the WERTHER'S ORIGINAL trademark was on the LIFE SAVERS DELITES packaging merely to highlight the differences between the two candies. Thus, because the claim was accurate and informational regarding the distinctions between the products, the competitor's trademark was accurately reproduced, and no endorsement or sponsorship by the competitor was implied, the court allowed this competitive advertising use. , 59 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 1995).

On the other hand, courts will regularly enjoin competitive advertising, even where the underlying claim or comparison was substantiated, if the competitor's trademark was altered and/or portrayed in a negative manner. For example Deere Company, a well-known agricultural equipment manufacturer, had used a deer silhouette logo for over one hundred years. MTD Products, the manufacturer of a competitor lawn tractor, produced a commercial utilizing an altered version of Deere's deer logo without Deere's permission. The federal court, applying New York state anti-dilution law, noted that although using Deere's exact deer logo to compare the competitor's product to MTD's product might have been lawful, the disparaging alterations – namely, changing the proportions of the logo and making the deer appear to run fearfully as it is pursued by the MTD tractor and a small barking dog – could "risk the possibility that consumers will come to attribute unfavorable characteristics to a mark and ultimately associate the mark with inferior goods and services." Since the trademark was altered by a competitor, and the alteration was seen as a negative portrayal of that trademark, the use of the altered logo in the comparative advertising was prohibited. ., 41 F.3d 39 (2nd Cir. 1994).

A basic understanding of the legal parameters surrounding the permissible use of a competitor's trademark in comparative advertising will assist those in your company charged with marketing responsibility to produce advertising that conveys the advantages of your company's products or services to the consumer, while minimizing the company's exposure to potential legal liability. Additionally, armed with information about the legal permissibility of comparative advertising, you can maintain vigilant watch over your company's trademarks to ensure they are not used by a competitor in a deceptive or misleading way, in order to obtain an unfair advantage in the marketplace.

24 3169 0 27

FindLaw Career Center

Select a Job Title

In today's episode, I discuss creating a "not to-do list", inspired by Warren Buffett's "two list strategy."

Today's episode is presented by Spec! For show notes and more episodes, head over to Best Place Cheap Price 2018 Newest All Over Floral Maxi Dress With Asymetric Hem Detail Multi Glamorous Discount Shop For Sneakernews For Sale Cheap Good Selling lWjvNiT

Don't forget to subscribe!

October 19, 2015

Today, we discuss the X/Y problem.

Today's episode is sponsored by! Go to to start learning to code today!

October 16, 2015

Today I talk to you about questions you should always ask a potential employer.

Today's episode is sponsored by Hired! If you are a developer or a designer looking for a job, Hired is a fantastic place to begin your journey! The special link for a doubled bonus is Outlet Many Kinds Of Lace Mini Bardot Dress With Floral Embroidery Ivory Little Mistress Petite New For Sale Cheap Sale Many Kinds Of Sale Official Cost IO7L90
- be sure to use this link when you sign up.

October 14, 2015

Today, we'll discuss how to cultivate relationships as a developer.

Go to Buy Cheap Popular Comfort Plus magic jeans design Caren Raphaela by Brax denim Brax Free Shipping 2018 Best Wholesale For Sale JIGYQ
to get started on cloud hosting. Use the promo code DEVELOPER TEA at the checkout after you create your account to get a $10 credit!

October 12, 2015

In today's episode, we talk about "Feature Runways."

October 9, 2015

Today we talk about saving time by managing questions.

October 7, 2015

In today's episode, I answer a question from listener Crispin Bennet!

Crispin wrote in and asked me about the balance between learning something ("deep-dive" style) and doing just enough to be productive today.

Today's episode is sponsored by ( )! If you are a developer or a designer looking for a job, Hired is a fantastic place to begin your journey!

Don't forget, show notes and all other episodes of Developer Tea can be found at!

October 5, 2015

Today we talk about avoiding a state of constant yellow alert.

October 2, 2015

Today I talk with Gregg Pollack and Carlos Souza from Codeschool.

Today's episode is brought to you by!

September 30, 2015

Today I talk with Gregg Pollack and Carlos Souza from Codeschool.

Today's episode is brought to you by!

September 28, 2015

In today's episode, I underline the importance of failure to the learning process, and then we discuss why failure should be destigmatized and looked at more in depth.

Many thanks to today's sponsor,! Head over to and you could receive 5 or more job offers in a given week!

September 25, 2015

In today's episode, we talk about the flawed process we use in the development industry for hiring.

Go to Brigitte Bikini Top in Coral size 1/S also in 2/M3/L Reina Olga Cost For Sale Rdoz2
to get started on cloud hosting. Use the promo code DEVELOPER TEA at the checkout after you create your account to get a $10 credit!

September 23, 2015

Like what you read? Give Vanessa Radd @vanradd a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.

  • Vanessa Radd @vanradd

    Founding Member, XR Alliance Small Carrie crossbody bag Visone 6pY7wGkmnV
    | Founder logo print onepiece White GCDS Marketable For Sale Pictures Cheap Price Sale For Cheap Latest Cheap Price OnKQWIJOM
    Asia | Top 10 global #AR, Top 50 #VR and #AI | #AikidoWomen @IAFAikido | Ex-AOL, Orange

  • Womens Twist Halter Maillot Swimsuit Seafolly Buy Cheap Countdown Package Fashion Style fzFSxHbpT

    how hackers start their afternoons.

  • Responses