-
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: June 2023
materiality dispute avoids sj in literal falsity case (also no seller standing against ingredient supplier)
World Nutrition Inc. v. Advanced Enzymes USA, 2023 WL 4105345, No. CV-19-00265-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz. Jun. 21, 2023) WNI and defendants AST/Specialty sell enzyme supplement products. WNI and AST sell directly to consumers, while Specialty is a wholesaler that sells to … Continue reading
Advertising injury policy’s IP exclusion means ROP claims aren’t covered
Covington Specialty Insurance Company v. Omega Restaurant & Bar, LLC, — F.Supp.3d —-, 2023 WL 2720805, No. 2:21-cv-247 (E.D. Va. Mar. 30, 2023) This is fallout from one of the many right of publicity etc. lawsuits against clubs for advertising … Continue reading
ESG statements are commercial speech excluded from California’s anti-SLAPP law
Hicks v. Grimmway Enters., Inc., 2023 WL 3829689, No. 22-CV-2038 JLS (DDL) (S.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2023) Hicks alleged that defendant, a California agricultural corporation, misrepresented the environmental impact of its farming practices through its advertising and “Inaugural Report on … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged california, commercial speech, consumer protection, false advertising
Leave a comment
“sweetened with monk fruit” and “sugar free” plausibly suggest food is entirely/predominantly sweetened with monk fruit
Scott v. Saraya USA, Inc., No. 22-cv-05232-WHO, 2023 WL 3819366 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2023) Scott alleged that Saraya’s representations that its granola and other products are “sweetened with monk fruit” or “monk fruit sweetened” were false and deceptive because … Continue reading
literally false material comparative ad avoids sj because of dispute about injury
MacuHealth, LP v. Vision Elements, Inc., 2023 WL 3863341, No. 8:22-cv-199-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla. Jun. 7, 2023) MacuHealth sells a nutritional supplement of the same name that is intended to maintain or improve eye health; Vision Elements is a competitor that … Continue reading
To every cow her calf: claim against Organic Valley partially survives based on maternal separation
Takahashi-Mendoza v. Cooperative Regions of Organic Producer Pools, 2023 WL 3856722, No. 22-cv-05086-JST (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2023) Plaintiff sued defendant, which does business as Organic Valley, under the CLRA and UCL, challenging labels on milk that say: 1. “Organic … Continue reading
Once again surveys fail to aid consumer-plaintiffs in greenwashing case
McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Company, — F.4th —-, 2023 WL 3911531, No. 22-15080 (9th Cir. Jun. 9, 2023) The court affirmed the dismissal of consumer protection claims against P&G products that used “Nature Fusion” in bold, capitalized text, with … Continue reading
Even counterfeiters can make nonconfusing uses where use clearly indicates compatibility rather than source
JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Chou, — F.Supp.3d —-, No. CV 21-3056 DSF (PDx), 2023 WL 3886046 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 8, 2023) Juul, which makes vaping products including charging docks/cases and cables for the main devices, sued defendants for trademark infringement … Continue reading
Nominative fair use of a logo on a motion to dismiss: common sense has its day
Xfinity Mobile v. Globalgurutech LLC, 2023 WL 3998459, No. CV-22-01950-PHX-SMB (D. Ariz. Jun. 14, 2023) I’ve been thinking a lot after Jack Daniel’s about the role of common sense in trademark. Judge Leval in scholarship, Trademark: Champion of Free Speech, … Continue reading
“for children” plausibly misleading where adult version is the same
Goodwin v. Walgreens, Co., No. CV 23-147-DMG (PDx), 2023 WL 4037175 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 14, 2023) This case is part of a wave of “false differentiation” cases that has been achieving at least some success in avoiding dismissal. Goodwin alleged … Continue reading