Author Archives: rtushnet

Don’t send a trademark to do a copyright’s job, forestry edition

Posted on August 27, 2018 by rtushnet

Munro v. Lucy Activewear, Inc., No. 16-4483 (8th Cir. Aug. 9, 2018) Munro is an artist best known for his works “Field of Light” and “Forest of Light”—“large-scale, immersive, light-based installations, and exhibitions.” Lucy allegedly proposed a Lucy advertising and … Continue reading →

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

Reading list: copyright and AI

Posted on August 27, 2018 by rtushnet

Jane C. Ginsburg and Luke Ali Budiardjo, Authors and Machines: Machines, by providing the means of mass production of works of authorship, engendered copyright law. Throughout history, the emergence of new technologies tested the concept of authorship, and courts in … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Another court is allergic to In re GNC’s flawed reasoning on falsity

Posted on August 20, 2018 by rtushnet

Hobbs v. Gerber Prods. Co., 2018 WL 3861571, No. 17 CV 3534 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 14, 2018) Say what you will about Seventh Circuit substance (and I have), I like the crisp Seventh Circuit style, which seems to influence the … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Court considers fake reviews not deceptive if they’re just puffery

Posted on August 20, 2018 by rtushnet

Jive Commerce, LLC  v. Wine Racks America, Inc., 2018 WL 3873675, No. 1:18-CV-49 TS-BCW (D. Utah Aug. 15, 2018) The parties compete in the wine rack and wine cellar industry. Jive’s principal Jason Miller was formerly employed by WRA. Miller … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

DC Circuit dodges incontestability, finds little-noticed statements immaterial in dueling desserts case

Posted on August 20, 2018 by rtushnet

Paleteria La Michoacana, Inc. v. Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A. de C.V., 2018 WL 3894587, No. 17-7075 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 10, 2018) The facts are a mess, but basically PLM and Prolacto both make paletas, Mexican frozen desserts, using nearly the … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

IPSC plenary

Posted on August 11, 2018 by rtushnet

Tonya Evans, CryptoKitties, Cryptography, and Copyright Nonfungible digital creativity, enabled by the ERC 721 standard on the Ethereum blockchain: verifiable, indestructible digital scarcity.  NFTs overcome failures of existing digital structure for creators by providing for ownership, provenance, chain of title.  … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

IPSC session 6

Posted on August 11, 2018 by rtushnet

Session 6: Tort-Tinged IP Ben Depoorter (and Robert Walker), So Sue Me … Please! Reverse Nuisance in Intellectual Property Law Goldieblox case: filed declaratory judgment against Beastie Boys. Getting sued can sometimes be a boon and can bring a lot … Continue reading →

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

Preserve challenged ads/social media posts after receiving a C&D or risk sanctions

Posted on August 10, 2018 by rtushnet

Nutrition Distribution LLC v. Pep Research, LLC, No. 16CV2328-WQH(BLM), 2018 WL 3769162  (S.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2018) (magistrate judge) A spoliation/false advertising issue.  “While Defendants produced some social media documents, the production did not include Facebook or Twitter posts relating … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

IPSC session 5

Posted on August 10, 2018 by rtushnet

Session 5: Copyright Michael Carroll, The Law of Musical Borrowing: A concept of © distinctiveness is implicit in how we talk about substantial similarity.  Who decides this? It’s supposed to be the consumer: ordinary observer/intended audience. Both TM and © … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

IPSC session 4

Posted on August 10, 2018 by rtushnet

Session 4: Old and New Theories of IP Shyam Balganesh, The Common Law of Copyright Censorial copyright claims: motivated by non economic, dignitary concerns, and the author/creator’s principal objective is expurgatory—to prevent the work from circulating publicly. These claims have … Continue reading →

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