-
Recent Posts
- Santa Clara IP Conference: Where Do We Go From Here?
- Santa Clara IP conference: How It’s Going: What Went Wrong?
- Santa Clara School of Law: Intellectual Property Conference: How It Started, How It’s Going: What Went Right?
- False endorsement claim can proceed against gov’t issued license plates and gov’t facility named for Roberto Clemente
- Non-TM owner can use 43(a) to challenge confusing use
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: May 2025
Burger King’s ads may have told a whopper about burger size
Coleman v. Burger King Corp., 2025 WL 1294605, No. 22-cv-20925-ALTMAN/Reid (S.D. Fla. May 5, 2025) Nineteen plaintiffs brought claims under 13 states’ laws alleging that BK falsely advertised the size/amounts of ingredients in various burgers; the court denied BKC’s motion … Continue reading
Publisher avoids liability for ad that allegedly disparaged plaintiff’s goods
Jewel Sanitary Napkins, LLC v. Busy Beaver Publications, LLC, No. 23-cv-126-slc, 2025 WL 1220311 (W.D. Wisc. Apr. 28, 2025) Jewel makes sanitary napkins containing a layer of material called graphene that Jewel claims has health benefits, while it touts the … Continue reading
Sixteenth Trademark Scholars’ Roundtable Session 4: How We Got to Trademark Use 2.0
Robert Burrell: use in Commonwealth systems came from strict liability for double identity—once that was extended to advertising, there are a whole lot of nonconfusing/beneficial uses of marks in advertising. TM use was brought in as a safety valve to … Continue reading
Sixteenth Trademark Scholars’ Roundtable Session 3 continued
Midpoint discussant: Laura Heymann Is the goal consistency? Is the goal limiting principles that can end a case early? Is use the right tool? Is it a proxy? To what extent should we accept the rest of the landscape as … Continue reading
Sixteenth Trademark Scholars’ Roundtable Session 3: What is the Significance of Trademark Use 2.0?
Introduction: Mark Lemley: What VIP actually says: Rogers test insulates from liability when use is only non-source identifying. Cardinal sin is to undermine source-indicating functioning: LV modification of mark in suitcase market implicates the core concerns of TM law. That … Continue reading
Sixteenth Trademark Scholars’ Roundtable Session 2: part 2
Mid-point discussants: Rebecca Tushnet Continuing the theme of offering a series of observations: Picking up on the relevance of 33(b)/referential use. First, for textualists, it may be true that 33(b) indicates that there is no general use as a mark … Continue reading
Sixteenth Trademark Scholars’ Roundtable Session 2: Trademark Use as an Element of Infringement Analysis
Mike Grynberg: SCt opinions since 2008. Courts don’t care about TM law; every now & then a judge does, but keeping the general rule in mind is useful—can’t expect dcts in particular to be able to sit back and explore all … Continue reading
Sixteenth Trademark Scholars’ Roundtable Trademark Use 2.0 part 1
University of Minnesota Law School, May 2-3, 2025 Graeme Dinwoodie Why revisit use? (Reading list for 2008 roundtable; session 1, session 2, session 2 part 2, session 3.) Creates methodological questions that are useful/worthy of exploring. 20 years may have … Continue reading
Rebecca Tushnet 