-
Recent Posts
- court rejects TM owner’s attempt to require full chain of custody for first sale defense, but where is the burden of proof?
- Temu’s “cheaper and way better quality than Shein” claims were potentially falsifiable, not puffery
- Dueling geneologists: photo (c) claims allowed, but not Lanham Act or factual compilation claims
- false advertising’s injury requirement causes reverse passing off claim to fail
- laches, once established, bars Lanham Act claims even during more recent periods
Recent Comments
Archives
- 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: March 2017
Slingbox’s addition of ads wasn’t deceptive
In re Sling Media Slingbox Advertising Litig., 202 F. Supp. 3d 352 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) Plaintiffs sued Sling under California law, and in the alternative under the consumer-protection laws of forty-seven other jurisdictions, including under New York General Business Law § … Continue reading
failure to caption music/songs doesn’t make “close captioned” label misleading
Anthony v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment Inc., 2016 WL 6836950, No. 2:15–cv–09593 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016) Plaintiffs, who are deaf or hard of hearing, alleged that defendants sold (1) DVDs enclosed in packaging with language advertising the DVDs as … Continue reading
Not with a bang but with a fastener
B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., — F. Supp. 3d —-, 2017 WL 957548 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 16, 2016) I mentioned this development a while back, but it’s now getting into the federal reporter, which is good so that … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged Not with a bang but with a fastener remedies, trademark
Leave a comment
Seen around town
Sufficient alteration + disclaimer to avoid trouble for this former BP franchisee? “This is not BP Gas,” above covered-over BP star Krackjack biscuits–any trouble from Cracker Jack if you import these from India? Does it matter that other versions of the … Continue reading
How green was my tractor accessory? John Deere defeats aesthetic functionality defense for color scheme
Deere & Co. v. FIMCO Inc., No. 15-CV-105 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 8, 2017) Deere sued FIMCO for infringing on Deere’s green and yellow color scheme on agricultural equipment. Deere has three green and yellow registrations: (1) the ‘103 Registration is … Continue reading
Conference announcement from the ABA
ABA’s 32nd Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference April 4-6, 2017 Crystal Gateway Marriott, Arlington, VA Learn more here. from Blogger http://ift.tt/2mDhGUT
GW/Harvard conference: licensing and exhaustion
Licensing and Exhaustion Moderator: Prof. Robert Brauneis, George Washington University Law School Eric M. Reifschneider, The Marconi Group: There are deals that have died just b/c of exhaustion uncertainty. What triggers exhaustion? At one time, many practitioners thought that a … Continue reading
GW/Harvard conference: Infringement and Defenses
Infringement and Defenses Moderator: Prof. Michael B. Abramowicz, George Washington University Law School William F. Lee, WilmerHale LLP: Literal infringement/each and every element of the claim—useful for laypeople to think about the claim. In many jurisdictions (Germany, Netherlands, Japan) around … Continue reading
Harvard & GW Law Conference, Intellectual Property, Private Law, and the Supreme Court: panel 1
Opening Remarks Hon. F. Scott Kieff, U.S. International Trade Commission Grokster required a heavy lift for those heavily oriented to positive law, b/c SCt took inducement—a doctrine in the patent statute, but absent from the otherwise very detailed © statute, … Continue reading
Harvard & GW Law Conference, Intellectual Property, Private Law, and the Supreme Court: panel 1
Opening Remarks Hon. F. Scott Kieff, U.S. International Trade Commission Grokster required a heavy lift for those heavily oriented to positive law, b/c SCt took inducement—a doctrine in the patent statute, but absent from the otherwise very detailed © statute, … Continue reading