|
•Advertising Disclosures
•Auctions
•Car Ads
•Car Loans
•Children's Ads
•Comparative Ads
•Consumer Lease
•Cotton
•Dairy
•Deceptive Pricing
•Diamonds
•Diet Programs
•Diet Supplements
•Down
•E-Mail Ads
•Endorsements
•Environment/Guide
•Environment/Mail
•Eye Care
•Eye Surgery
•Food Ads
•Fur
•Gems
•Health Claims
•Hearing Aids
•Home Financing
•Indoor Tanning
•Internet Ads
•Internet Mktng.
•Infertility Svcs.
•Jewelry
•Made in USA #1
•Made in USA #2
•Made in USA #3
•Made in USA #4
•Milk
•MLM #1
•MLM #2
•Pearls
•Precious Metals
•Recycling
•Retail Electricity
•Spam
•Testimonials
•Timeshare Tips
•Unfairness
•Use of Word "Free"
•Vacation Plans
•Varicose Veins
•Wool
•Yellow Pages
Our Related Websites
Advertising Compliance Service
Advertising Substantiation
Ad Substantiation
Green Advertising Law
Political Advertising Law
|
CLAIMS FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT DISMISSED IN FALSE ADVERTISING CASE
The Southern District Court granted a law firm's motion for
judgment on the pleadings in a case involving the Lanham Act. The
plaintiff in this case, Agatha Brown is a fashion designer. She
alleged that defendants Michel Quiniou and the companies he owns,
Agatha Diffusion S.r.L. and Sixteen, Inc. have infringed upon her
trademark in the registered mark "AGATHA." The complaint also named
as defendant Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C., a law firm that
provided Brown with representation until November 1987, and that
shortly thereafter began to represent defendants Quiniou et al.
One of the causes of action in this case alleged false advertising,
in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(a)(1)(B). The
Court concluded that claims for trademark infringement had to be
dismissed since the law firm didn't have "goods" of the type in
question here.
(Agatha Brown v. Michel Quiniou, Agatha Diffusion, S.R.L. Sixteen,
Inc. and Fross Zellnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C., No. 02 Civ. 4630
(CBM), United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19766, November 4, 2003.)
FTC: COMPANIES RAN ADVANCE FEE CREDIT CARD SCAM
A federal district court temporarily halted the business practices of Peoples Credit
First, LLC, Consumer Preferred, LLC (formerly known as Consumer
First, LLC), and their principals Shaun Olmstead and Julie Connell.
Reason: They allegedly ran an advance fee credit card scam. FTC filed
charges against defendants citing that they violated the FTC Act by
representing expressly or by implication that consumers were likely
to get unsecured, a major credit card, like a Visa or MasterCard, in
exchange for an advance fee payment. FTC obtained a temporary
restraining order with an asset freeze and other equitable relief.
FTC charged that defendants' fraudulent business practices resulted
in injury to thousands of consumers across the U.S. According to FTC,
defendants mailed letters to consumers that promise a "platinum card"
with a $5000 credit limit and no initial "APR" for a $45 fee, or $49
for "rush delivery."
Defendants' letters carried the distinctive title "ACCEPTANCE
CERTIFICATE" and inform consumers that they've already been approved
to receive the platinum card with the substantial credit line.
Defendants' letter allegedly also said that no application or credit
check is needed if they sign the acceptance certificate and return it
along with a check or money order.
FTC alleged that these solicitations led consumers to believe that
they would get a major credit card, like a Visa or MasterCard.
Instead, what they allegedly received was a package that contained a
merchandise catalogue, a brochure describing how to order from the
catalogue, and a thin, plastic card with the consumers' name and an
account number on it. After receiving the package of materials, many
consumers had difficulty contacting defendants to cancel, and those
who were able to contact the defendants were denied refunds or told
that they were no longer entitled to a refund, FTC alleged.
The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Tampa Division, on November 10, 2003.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has "reason to
believe" that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears
to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The
complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually
violated the law. The case will be decided by the court.
(FTC v. Peoples Credit First, LLC., et al., U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division; Civil Action No:
8:03CV2353, FTC File No. 032 3079, November 20, 2003.)
FTC FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST "CREDIT COUNSELING" FIRM
FTC filed a complaint in federal court charging that a national organization that
promotes itself as a non-profit credit counseling agency is engaged
in deceptive practices. According to FTC's complaint, defendants
misrepresented that they--
- charge no up-front fee for their services,
- operate as a non-profit, and
- teach consumers how to handle their finances.
FTC's complaint charged AmeriDebt, Inc.; DebtWorks, Inc.; and Andris
Pukke; and also names Pamela Pukke (a/k/a Pamela Shuster) as a relief
defendant. AmeriDebt widely advertised its credit-counseling services
nationally.
FTC's complaint also alleges that defendants charge an up-front fee
to consumers enrolling in a DMP, despite claims to the contrary in
their advertising. Defendants allegedly urge consumers to make an
initial payment to enroll formally in the program. Rather than
disbursing that payment to creditors, FTC alleges, AmeriDebt keeps it
as its fee. While the contract with consumers refers to this payment,
it's described as "voluntary" and is inconsistent with the earlier
claims that there are no up-front fees.
FTC's complaint asks that the court permanently enjoin defendants
from misrepresenting their fees, services, or non-profit status;
require that the defendants disclose that they retain the consumer's
first payment; and order the defendants to provide privacy notices to
consumers. The complaint also asks that the court award consumer
redress.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has "reason to
believe" that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears
to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The
complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually
violated the law. The case will be decided by the court.
The stipulated final order for Ballenger Group is for settlement
purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant
of a law violation. A stipulated final order requires approval by the
court and has the force of law when signed by the judge.
(Federal Trade Commission v. AmeriDebt, Inc., DebtWorks, Inc., Andris
Pukke, and Pamela Pukke, also known as Pamela Shuster (District of
Maryland), FTC File No. 0223171, November 19, 2003; Federal Trade
Commission v. Ballenger Group, LLC, and Ballenger Holdings, LLC
(District of Maryland), FTC File No. 0223171, November 19, 2003.)
|
Main Archived News Index:
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003
Archived 2003 News:
January |
February |
March |
April |
May |
June
July |
August |
September |
October |
November |
December
Advertising Compliance Service...
|
