Monthly Archives: April 2018

TM scholars’ roundtable, part 2

Session 1, Cont’d Mid-Point Discussants:                       Stacey Dogan: pre-20th c, very few cases of claims based on noncompeting goods, and even fewer with actual harm stories.  Can be characterized as chance or as the functions of the markets of the day, … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

TM Scholars’ roundtable, part 1

Trademark Scholars’ Roundtable, 10th year! Session 1:  The Distinction Between Trademark and Unfair Competition Law Introduction:   Mark McKenna: Until mid 20th c, could have said that TM and UC were distinct legal claims that vindicated the same right; thus … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

can investigating claims bind you to arbitration?

LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C. v. LegalZoom.com, Inc., 2018 WL 1738135, No. 17-cv-07194-MMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2018) LegalZoom, which advertises its ability to help people register trademarks, allegedly makes “false comparisons to attorney led services” and engages in the unauthorized … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

1201 exemption hearing: filmmaking and ebooks

PROPOSED CLASS 1: Audiovisual Works—Criticism and Comment—E-Books and Filmmaking Michael C. Donaldson, FilmIndependent, International Documentary Association, Kartemquin Educational Films, Inc., Independent Filmmaker Project, University of Film and Video Association, The Alliance for Media Arts+Culture (“Joint Filmmakers”): Discusses use of film … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Brief notes on 1201 space-shifting exemption hearings

PROPOSED CLASS 3: Space-shifting Keith Chatfield SolaByte: Electronic new media solution developers: method for space-shifting based on licensed transactions, not moving the files.  Support OmniQ’s proposal on behalf of consumer—can convert content to more robust security, devices. Future-proof content against … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Consumer class action fails for failure to survey on the exact statements challenged

Townsend v. Monster Beverage Corp., — F.Supp.3d —-, 2018 WL 1662131, No. 12–2188–VAP (KKx) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2018) The Ninth Circuit remanded this case on UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims insofar as they challenge four specific on-label representations of … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

we said the meal was a “value,” we just didn’t say to whom

Killeen v. McDonald’s Corp., 2018 WL 1695366, No. 17 CV 874 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 6, 2018) Courts will only rarely protect consumers against their inability in the moment to do math; this is not one of those times. Killeen alleged … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Recent acquisitions: really bad court decisions edition

Tarkay and Patricia Govezensky posters, from Romm Art Creations v. Simcha Int’l, Inc., 786 F.Supp. 1126 (E.D.N.Y. 1992), an absolutely terrible decision finding that the “Women and Cafes” style was inherently distinctive and thus had secondary meaning and high strength … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

The truth is out there, but it might violate the right of publicity

Scott v. Citizen Watch Co., No. 17-cv-00436-NC, 2018 WL 1626773 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2018) This case would be the poster child for the need for a true reckoning between modern right of publicity law and the modern First Amendment, … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

make your own sexual reference: 9th Circuit partially reinstates male enhancement lawsuit

Sandoval v. PharmaCare US, Inc., No. 16-56301, No. 16-56710, — Fed.Appx. —-, 2018 WL 1633011 (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2018) Sandoval brought a putative class action claim based on PharmaCare’s statements about its “male enhancement” product IntenseX. The court of … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment