Monthly Archives: March 2020

“complete” vitamin is plausibly deceptive where essential nutrients are lacking

Devane v. Church & Dwight Co., No. 3:19-cv-09899-BRM-LHG, 2020 WL 998946 (D.N.J. Feb. 28, 2020) Plaintiffs brought consumer protection claims based on Church & Dwight’s purportedly false labelling of several multivitamins, including L’il Critters Multivitamins, Vitafusion Women’s Complete Multivitamins, and … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

discovery of trade secrets in a false advertising case

Monster Energy Co. v. Vital Pharm., Inc., 2019 WL 8112506, No. 5:18-cv-01882-JGB (SHKx) (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2019) I don’t cover many discovery disputes, but this one has some passing interest for the substance of false advertising law. Monster & … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

FDA/FTC Workshop on a Competitive Marketplace for Biosimilars

FDA Licensure Process and U.S. Biosimilar Markets   [I entered in media res] · Eva Temkin, Acting Director for Policy, Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars,  CDER, FDA   · Christine Simmon, Executive Director, Biosimilars Council, AAM: barriers to entry for … Continue reading

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

“better lives for hens” was puffery, but hen living conditions claims weren’t

Lugones v. Pete & Gerry’s Organic, LLC, No. 19 Civ. 2097 (KPF), 2020 WL 871521  (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2020 Plaintiffs alleged that they bought defendant’s eggs, branded as Nellie’s Free Range Eggs, based on false advertisements indicating that the hens … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Cal. court says “controversial” claim is therefore not factual

Serova v. Sony Music Entertainment, 44 Cal.App.5th 103 (2020) Hard to believe the reasoning in this case could get worse, but they may have achieved it. The California Supreme Court told the court of appeals to reconsider its earlier decision … Continue reading

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

YouTube’s terms of service/content policies aren’t commercial advertising or promotion

Prager Univ. v. Google LLC, No. 18-15712 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2020) YouTube isn’t a public forum and didn’t engage in false advertising by telling users it supported freedom of expression. Prager “University” (it’s not) complained that YT was discriminating … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Trademark Scholars Roundtable, Stanford part 3

Session 3: Remedies in Trademark and Unfair Competition Cases   Introduction: Mark Lemley, Leah Chan Grinvald Discussant: Laura Heymann, Eric Goldman   [I had another conference in the morning so came in late.] Discussion of eBay’s effects. Burrell: In other … Continue reading

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

Trademark Scholars Roundtable, Stanford part 2

Session 2: A Forward-Looking Perspective   To what extent should trademark or unfair competition law reflect consumer expectations or seek to shape or set them? Introduction: Rebecca Tushnet One consideration in how we should structure the regime is that casual … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Trademark Scholars Roundtable, Stanford

Trademark Scholars Roundtable Session 1: The Current Framework   To what extent does current trademark or unfair competition law reflect consumer expectations or seek to shape or set them? Introduction: Stacey Dogan Categorize rules as norm shaping v. norm following. … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment