-
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: September 2021
getting friends to leave fake reviews isn’t enough for direct liability
BHRS Gp., LLC v. Brio Water Technol. Inc., 2020 WL 9422352, No. 2:20-CV-07652-JWH-JCx (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2020) BHRS, which makes water cooler products, sued its competitor Brio for state and federal false advertising and trade libel. BHRS alleged that … Continue reading
IIC decision also says some things about false advertising: materiality may not be presumed from literal falsity
Select Comfort Corp. v. Baxter; 996 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2021) You probably know that the court of appeals sent this case back for retrial on an initial interest confusion theory. I won’t say much about that, though I do … Continue reading
Journalism about investment isn’t commercial speech
Crash Proof Retirement, LLC v. Price, 2021 WL 1387501, No. 2:20-cv-05906-JDW (E.D. Pa. Apr. 13, 2021) Competing in the marketplace of ideas can ground a defamation claim, but not a false advertising claim. Crash Proof, which offers retirement planning counseling, … Continue reading
Microsoft dodges some false advertising claims based on its security offerings
Tocmail Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 2020 WL 9210739, No. 20-60416-CIV-SMITH (S.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2020) From the deepest depths of backlog: Tocmail alleged that Microsoft’s deceptive promotions of its cyber-security service, Safe Links, constituted false advertising and contributory false advertising. … Continue reading
competitor has state, federal standing to challenge nondisparaging false ads
Jerome’s Furniture Warehouse v. Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc., 2021 WL 1541649, No. 20CV1765-GPC(BGS) (S.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2021) Jerome’s alleged false advertising under state and federal law based on Ashley’s alleged false advertising “intended to deceive customers into falsely believing … Continue reading
Apple’s “buy” button that doesn’t result in ownership may mislead consumers
Andino v. Apple, Inc., 2021 WL 1549667, No. 2:20-cv-01628-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2021) iTunes allows consumers to “Rent” or “Buy” movies, television shows, music and other content. Renting is less expensive; buying leads the content to appear in a … Continue reading
Coffee lawsuits brewing
Two cases, suggesting a newly discovered litigation vein. Ashton v. J.M. Smucker Co., No. EDCV 20-992 JGB (SHKx), 2020 WL 8575140 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2020) Plaintiffs alleged that representations on the front of Folgers ground coffee cans, including “MAKES … Continue reading
Informational functionality is a thing now
Sulzer Mixpac AG v. A&N Trading Co., No. 19-2951 (2d Cir. Feb. 18, 2021) The parties compete in the U.S. market for mixing tips used by dentists to create impressions of teeth for dental procedures, such as crowns. Reversing the … Continue reading
organic protein is generic, but trade dress comes to the rescue
Orgain, Inc. v. Northern Innovations Holding Corp., 2021 WL 1321653, No. 8:18-cv-01253-JLS-ADS (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2021) The parties compete in the market for nutritional supplements. Orgain alleged that defendants infringed its trade dress in selling a competing plant-based nutritional … Continue reading
Uber’s expansion into ads hits a TM hurdle
Uber Inc. v. Uber Technol., Inc., No. 20-cv-2320 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2021) Uber Inc. has offered design and marketing services under the name “Uber” since 1999. Uber Technologies, the one you know about, was incorporated in 2010. As it … Continue reading