False Designation of Origin definition

False Designation of Origin means the act of any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which:

False Designation of Origin means the act of any person who, on or inconnection with any goods, or services, or any container for goods, uses incommerce any word, term, name symbol, or device, or any combination thereof,or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which: (i) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person; or (ii) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services or commercial activities, shall be liable to a civil action for damages and injunction provided in Sections 156 and 157 of the IP Code by any person who believes that he or she is likely to be damaged by such act.

Examples of False Designation of Origin in a sentence

• See Rebecca Tushnet, No Mark, No False Designation of Origin Is Still the Rule in NY, Rebecca Tushnet’s 43(B) Blog, http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2016/04/no-mark-no- false-designation-of-origin.html (Apr.

• WNC is seeking damages under Counts 1 and 2 (Trademark Infringement and False Designation of Origin), Count 6 (Abuse of Process), Count 7 (Civil Action under the Crime Victims Relief Act based on intimidation and conversion), Count 8 (Breach of Contract), and Count 9 (Fraud).

• Plaintiff has asserted against Defendant Global the following claims: Count II for violation of Pennsylvania’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act; Count III for tortious interference with prospective and contractual relationships; Count IV for libel and slander; Count VI for False Designation of Origin and Unfair Competition, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A); Count VIII for common law unfaircompetition; and Count X for Federal Copyright Infringement, 17 U.S.C. § 501.

• APT’s false advertising claim survives the Rule 12(b)(6) challenge.2. False Designation of Origin A false designation of origin claim is similar to a false advertising claim; indeed, APT argues that “[h]ere, the [false advertising and false designation of origin] analyses collapseinto one another because the heart of VWR’s deceptive practices—promoting its products as a continuation of the CRITICAL COVER line under a new name—encompasses both false advertising and false designation of origin,” APT Resp.

• Fieldpiece's False Marking, False Designation of Origin, False Advertising of Twin Rivers' patent numbers on Fieldpiece's hard copy and Internet images of its Packaging, User Manual and Promotional Flyer has caused confusion among consumers, retailers and distributors and is likely to cause further confusion.

• This action arises under § 43(a) of the Trademark Act of July 5, 1946, as amended, commonly known as the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.; the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d); the Federal False Designation of Origin staute 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); the Colorado Consumer Protection Act C.R.S. § 6- 1-101 et seq.

• According to the estimates of United Nations the number of international migrants6 was 191 million in 2005, which represents about 3 percent of the world’s population.

• ZeniMax’s False Designation of Origin Claim is Barred by Dastar The gravamen of ZeniMax’s false designation of origin claim is difficult to discern but appears to rest on the allegation that “Defendants wrongfully held out ZeniMax’s intellectual property as their own” (ECF 968 at 4) when “the Oculus Rift Kickstarter video[] misleadingly attribute[d] Carmack’s work at ZeniMax to Oculus.” (ECF 963 at 20).1 That claim is plainly barred by Dastar v.

• Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to summary judgment on their Trademark Infringement claim, False Designation of Origin or Sponsorship, False Advertising, and Trade Dress Infringement claim, and its Common Law Trademark Infringement claim.

• On October 28, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint alleging, among other things, Unfair Competition by False Designation of Origin under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125.