-
Recent Posts
- WIPIP Panel 6: Design and Brand; Protectable Subject Matter; Copyright Theory and Doctrine II
- WIPIP Panel 5: Trademark Doctrine
- WIPIP Panel 4: Emerging Technologies
- “shipping protection fee” providing no extra protection was plausibly misleading drip pricing
- WIPIP Panel 3: Deepfakes, Celebrities, and Movies
Recent Comments
Archives
- February 2026
- January 2026
- December 2025
- November 2025
- October 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- June 2013
Categories
- 230
- acpa
- advertising
- antitrust
- art law
- attribution
- blogging
- california
- cfaa
- cfps
- class actions
- cmi
- comics
- commercial speech
- conferences
- consumer protection
- contracts
- copying
- copyright
- counterfeiting
- cultural property
- damages
- dastar
- defamation
- design patent
- dilution
- disclosures
- disparagement
- dmca
- drm
- fan fiction
- fanworks
- fda
- fees
- first amendment
- ftc
- geographic indications
- http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post
- insurance
- jurisdiction
- libraries
- misappropriation
- music
- my lawsuits
- my writings
- parody
- patent
- patents
- preemption
- presentations
- privacy
- procedure
- reading list
- remedies
- right of publicity
- secondary liability
- securities
- standing
- surveys
- teaching
- tortious interference
- trade secrets
- trademark
- traditional knowledge
- Uncategorized
- unconscionability
- unfairness
- warranties
Meta
Monthly Archives: January 2014
the trademark joke is a tricky beast
For example: Me: Hi I’d like some cocaine please Dealer: is pepsicane ok? http://tushnet.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
Posted in trademark
Leave a comment
Bumble Bee pushes the envelope, finds lawsuit inside
Ogden v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, No. 12-CV-01828, 2014 WL 27527 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2014) I’m trying to do less food claim blogging, but I noted this case because of the summary judgment submissions, which contain interesting evidence about … Continue reading
advertising law exam in 140 characters or less
Film critic’s tweet turned into ad without his consent: violation of the right of publicity? Grounds for a false endorsement claim? Or just standard practice for publishers’/studios’ use of reviews? (This ad is for a product itself protected by the … Continue reading
Posted in advertising, right of publicity
Leave a comment
Guest post: Betsy Rosenblatt on the case of Sherlock Holmes’ two lives
Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate, Ltd., No. 13-cv-01226 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 23, 2013) I’m going to turn this over to Betsy Rosenblatt, current colleague/head of the legal committee of the Organization for Transformative Works and Assistant Professor of Law/Director, Center … Continue reading
The Cadillac of nominative fair use questions
Check out the tagline for this Thermador ad: “The Swiss Army Knife® for the Culinary Obsessive.” In the mouseprint footnote, there’s a link to the Thermador website and the statement “® Swiss Army is a registered trademark of Victorinox AG … Continue reading
Posted in dilution, trademark
Leave a comment
Transformative work of the day
Parody of Let it Go from Frozen: the rare parody that focuses on song structure. I’m tempted to suggest that even the music publishers would have to call this one fair use, but that would be unrealistic. http://tushnet.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
is political use of 9/11 images fair use?
North Jersey Media Group Inc. v. SarahPAC, No. 13-cv-06494 S.D.N.Y. filed Oct.7, 2013 Sarah Palin used a photo of firefighters raising a flag at Ground Zero on 9/11 in her 2013 Facebook post labeled “Never forget.” She was sued for … Continue reading
a tasty copyright analogy
Jonathan Lethem on the overexpansion of copyright rights, from an author who depends in part on copyright for his living: “It’s like there’s ten miles of frosting on a cake. I like the cake, I might cling to the cake, … Continue reading
News for storage jars containing sugar
The NYT discusses searches for new sugar substitutes, along with legal/advertising aspects of their promotion: [W]hat about the consumers who are drawn to “natural” claims — will they still go for stevia when it flows from a vat of G.M.O.’s? … Continue reading
Posted in advertising, consumer protection
Leave a comment
possible profit recovery means TM case continues
It’s a 10, Inc. v. Beauty Elite Group, Inc., 2013 WL 6834804, No. 13–60154 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 23, 2013) Previous discussion. Plaintiff sells It’s a 10 Miracle Leave in Product for hair: Defendant’s directly competing product was allegedly confusingly similar … Continue reading
Posted in dilution, trademark
Leave a comment