Goenj Woman Colorblock Cottonblend Corded Lace Jacket Charcoal Size M GOENJ Buy Cheap Store Cheap Sale 100 Guaranteed 2018 Sale Online FIbbd

Goen.j Woman Color-block Cotton-blend Corded Lace Jacket Charcoal Size M GOEN.J Buy Cheap Store Cheap Sale 100% Guaranteed 2018 Sale Online FIbbd
Goen.j Woman Color-block Cotton-blend Corded Lace Jacket Charcoal Size M GOEN.J
Outlet Visa Payment lace palazzo pants Pink amp; Purple Im Isola Marras Outlet Footlocker Pick A Best Online Safe Payment High Quality Cheap Online 9OuBsCjfs1
Fade Swim Short Blue Another Influence Cheap Real YB6Zcod1i
Haute Hippie Woman Offtheshoulder Silkblend Blouse Antique Rose Size XS Haute Hippie Amazon Cheap Online Y3XDRTI






Sleeveless Top IN ROSE by VIDA VIDA Cheap Sale Latest Collections With Credit Card Online 2018 New Amazing Price JZao43YP
FindLaw For Legal Professionals
Sast For Sale Free Shipping Visit Iris amp; Ink Woman Cashmere Track Pants Light Gray Size XS IRIS amp; INK Fashion Style For Sale iNXaFz
| logo embroidered jersey shorts Grey Aimé Leon Dore Outlet Many Kinds Of mhad4AP8W
Welcome. Essential Top Gold Impressions by VIDA VIDA Original Cheap Price 4Ic06
| 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 http://spec.fm today.

Don't forget to subscribe!

October 19, 2015

Today, we discuss the X/Y problem.

Today's episode is sponsored by OneMonth.com! Go to onemonth.com/developertea 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 Dress for Women Evening Cocktail Party On Sale Green acetate 2017 10 N°21 Buy Cheap 2018 Newest Sale Geniue Stockist Buy Cheap Comfortable Outlet For Nice JYg5eg
- 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 Where To Buy Low Price Cheap Comfortable Dusty Pink Satin Robe Pretty Little Thing Largest Supplier For Sale Pictures Cheap Online boFInX
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 Hired.com ( Cheap Sale Big Discount Black Second Skin Slinky Spaghetti Strap Bodycon Dress Pretty Little Thing Sale Outlet Reliable NkRoggMj2
)! 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 Spec.fm!

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 Emilio Pucci Woman Printed Silk Mini Dress Army Green Size 40 Emilio Pucci Pre Order Cheap Price UXFmsQ1e

September 30, 2015

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

Today's episode is brought to you by http://spec.fm!

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, Hired.com! Head over to Hired.com/developertea 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 https://digitalocean.com 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.

  • Cheap Low Cost Womens Naomi Nightie CALIDA Sale Best Wholesale Popular Sale Online L2sK55AWU

    Founding Member, XR Alliance Pleated Gown J Mendel Exclusive Online F0Q2eZq
    | Founder @XRWomen Asia | Top 10 global #AR, Top 50 #VR and #AI | #AikidoWomen Classic scoopneck silksatin slip dress Loup Charmant Official Cheap Online Best Cheap Price Genuine Wholesale Price Sale Online 0NMs75jU
    | Ex-AOL, Orange

  • Cheap Sale 2018 New Top for Women On Sale in Outlet Pink Cotton 2017 12 Blumarine Many Kinds Of Online 2OpPDu

    how hackers start their afternoons.

  • Responses