Author Archives: rtushnet

PediaSure “growth” claims might communicate height gain, but price premium theory fails

Posted on June 8, 2026 by rtushnet

Noriega v. Abbott Labs., 2026 WL 1601501, No. 23 Civ. 4014 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 4, 2026) Conventional wisdom is that certification is the ballgame for consumer class actions, but it might be empirically mistaken. This case is an example where … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

6th Circuit approves of using (at least) same similarity standard for dilution as for confusion

Posted on June 8, 2026 by rtushnet

Scotts Co. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 2026 WL 1601797, No. 25-3555 (6th Cir. Jun. 4, 2026) Discussion of trade dress opinion here. False advertising claim here. The district court didn’t abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Promoting Progress part 2 at AU WCL

Posted on June 5, 2026 by rtushnet

Framing the Public Interest Agenda – Beyond the Narrative of “Content vs. Tech” Framing Digital Consumer Rights US experience is v different from rest of world—want to support the int’l discussion keeping that in mind. US libraries are ubiquitous, 122,000 … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Promoting Progress: 50 Years of the Copyright Act from the Perspective of the Public Interest

Posted on June 5, 2026 by rtushnet

AU Washington College of Law, Program on Information Justice & Intellectual Property Chatham House rules. Opening discussion: The Role of the Public Interest in Framing the Copyright Act of 1976 AI is sucking all the air out of © discussion … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Second Annual Aspiring Free Speech Scholars Workshop

Posted on June 4, 2026 by rtushnet

jointly sponsored by the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law (ASU)and the Hoover Institution (Stanford University) Because of a technical problem, any submissions before June 4, 2026 were lost; please resubmit (or submit for the first time) at the new … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

court allows TM and false advertising claims against “toxic backlink” SEO disparagement campaign (SEM, for minimization?)

Posted on June 4, 2026 by rtushnet

Montway LLC v. Nexus AT LLC, 2026 WL 1552185, No. 25 C 13100, No. 26 C 1056 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 2, 2026) Although the UCL unfair competition claims got kicked out, federal trademark and false advertising claims survive in this … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Instagram disparagement by alleged competitor isn’t commercial speech

Posted on June 4, 2026 by rtushnet

Farina v. Omari, No. 24-11098 (SDW) (AME), 2026 WL 1552256 (D.N.J. Jun. 2, 2026) The court grants a motion to dismiss in this defamation/false advertising claim centered on online videos. “Farina is a consultant in the aesthetic surgery industry and … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Reading list: Deception wins at the Federal Circuit

Posted on June 2, 2026 by rtushnet

 “A doctrine that was meant to deter deception thus rewards its most sophisticated form: technically accurate fragments presented as universal facts.” This student article shows how the Federal Circuit allowed two layers of deceptive advertising: advertising results from p-hacking, without … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

9th Circuit applies Dastar to bar false advertising liability based on “first to market” claims

Posted on June 1, 2026 by rtushnet

Vericool World, LLC v. Igloo Products Corp., No. 24-192, 2026 WL 1239879, — F.4th —- (9th Cir. May 6, 2026) Judge Bumatay dissented from this decision extending Dastar to bar Lanham Act false advertising claims over who was “first” to … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

claim that entity sells unapproved drugs does not misrepresent “origin, sponsorship, or approval” for Lanham Act purposes

Posted on June 1, 2026 by rtushnet

Peptide Tech LLC v. Avidia Bank, 2026 WL 1506049, No. 25-13179-MJJ (D. Mass. May 28, 2026) Plaintiff sells peptides; Avidia is a bank and acquiring bank for merchants who accept credit and debit card payments. Doe defendants allegedly reported Peptide … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment