-
Recent Posts
- Are surcharge disclosures fair?
- Mexican flag and “taste of Mexico” not enough to deceive reasonable consumers about non-Mexican origin, 2d Cir rules
- court: there’s no right to jury trial when seeking only injunction/disgorgement in false advertising case
- alleged price bait-and-switch with large “processing fee” suffices to plead Lanham Act false advertising
- Great balls of fire: lawsuit over malt sold looking nearly identical to whisky can continue
Recent Comments
Archives
- 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 2020
“Maximum Strength” is plausibly misleading when cheaper Regular Strength has more active ingredient by volume
Al Haj v. Pfizer Inc., 2019 WL 3202807, No. 17 C 6730 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 16, 2019) Al Haj alleged that Pfizer deceived consumers by charging more for “Maximum Strength” Robitussin cough syrup than for “Regular Strength” Robitussin even though … Continue reading
100% Pure Aloe can contain preservatives, stabilizers in the absence of evidence from consumers that they care
Beardsall v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., — F.3d —-, 2020 WL 1429214, No. 19-1850 (2d Cir. Mar. 24, 2020) The court explains: Plaintiffs brought state consumer deception claims [under 12 different states’ laws] against defendant Fruit of the Earth and its … Continue reading
antitrust claim based in part on false advertising in concentrated market survives
Chase Manufacturing, Inc. v. Johns Manville Corp., 2020 WL 1433504, No. 19-cv-00872-MEH (D. Colo. Mar. 23, 2020) (magistrate) Chase sued JM for violations of the Lanham Act and the Sherman Act for tying and monopolization. JM sells construction products, including … Continue reading
230 protects anti-malware vendor against noncompetitors
Asurvio LP v. Malwarebytes Inc., No. 5:18-cv-05409-EJD, 2020 WL 1478345 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2020) Despite unfavorable precedent, Malwarebytes secures dismissal of this Lanham Act false advertising (and common law disparagement/tortious interference/unfair competition/ violation of the Texas Theft Liability Act … Continue reading
“no soy protein” claim for dog food plausibly indicates no soy
Rice-Sherman v. Big Heart Pet Brands, Inc., No. 19-cv-03613-WHO, 2020 WL 1245130 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2020) Plaintiffs alleged that Big Heart falsely markets its Grain Free Easy to Digest Salmon Sweet Potato & Pumpkin Recipe Dog Food as “Grain … Continue reading
Statements in book promoting addiction treatment protected by Cal anti-SLAPP law
Selkirk v. Grasshopper House, LLC, 2020 WL 1241565, No. B294568 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2020) Defendants Grasshopper House and Passages Silver Strand “are luxury facilities that purport to treat drug and alcohol addiction.” Former patients sued them for allegedly … Continue reading
Mislabeled image of competitor’s LED screen as LG’s gets LG in trouble
Sansi North America, LLC v. LG Electronics USA, Inc., 2019 WL 8168069, No. CV 18-3541 PSG (SKx) (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2019) LG used a picture of Sansi’s LED displays in an article for a trade publication and accidentally labeled … Continue reading
Selling scammy books is protected by the First Amendment when selling scammy products isn’t
Federal Trade Comm’n v. Agora Financial, LLC, 2020 WL 998734, No. 1:19-cv-3100-SAG (D. Md. Mar. 2, 2020) The defendants do relatively well here by selling scammy and deceptive books. To the extent that the deception is contained in the books, … Continue reading
negative inference about other juices from “no sugar added” on D’s juice is implausible
Shaeffer v. Califia Farms, LLC, 44 Cal.App.5th 1125, No. B291085 (Feb. 6, 2020) Califia sells a “100% Tangerine Juice.” The front label includes “100% Tangerine Juice,” “No Sugar Added,” and “Never From Concentrate.” Shaeffer brought the usual California claims, alleging … Continue reading
commercial advertising & promotion post-Lexmark: 10th Circuit preserves old test
Strauss v. Angie’s List, Inc., — F.3d —-, 2020 WL 1126523, No. 19-3025 (10th Cir. Mar. 9, 2020) Lexmark, most courts have recognized, changed prong 2 of the standard Gordon & Breach test for “commercial advertising or promotion.” Unfortunately, the … Continue reading