-
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
Author Archives: rtushnet
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
failure to allege incremental materiality dooms false advertising counterclaims
Intuit Inc. v. HRB Tax Group, Inc., 2025 WL 1168897, No. 5:24-cv-00253-BLF (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2025) Counterclaim-plaintiff (Block) alleged that Intuit engaged in false advertising of its TurboTax services. TurboTax includes three tiers: (1) “Do-It-Yourself;” (2) “Live Assisted;” and … Continue reading
7th Circuit allows nationwide injunction under Illinois consumer protection law
Republic Technol. (NA), LLC v. BBK Tobacco & Foods, LLP, — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 1201401, No. 23-2973, No. 23-3096 (7th Cir. 2025) Republic and BBK (aka HBI) compete in the market for organic hemp rolling papers for cigarettes. Republic … Continue reading
trademark infringement accusations are opinion without a final judgment
Trevari Media, LLC v. Colasse, 758 F.Supp.3d 1175 (C.D. Cal. 2024) Colasse accused Trevari of infringing its trade dress in a “[s]pring-loaded glass-breaking device. Although the trade dress was registered in 2014, when Colasse emailed Trevari alleging infringement in 2021, … Continue reading
package claim that required users to double serving size and add ingredient was plausibly misleading despite disclaimer
Mencia-Montes v. Fit Foods Distrib., Inc., 2025 WL 1185372, No. 24-cv-01768-EKL (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2025) Courts in the 9th Circuit have increasingly held, in consumer protection cases, that an asterisk puts the consumer on notice of important qualifications. But … Continue reading
nonprofits’ promotion of “abortion reversal” services was commercial speech
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Bonta, No. 2:24-CV-08468-HDV-(MARx), 2025 WL 1140450 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2025) Not sure this one survives appellate review, but we’ll see. NIFLA sued for injunctive relief against California AG Bonta over his … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged commercial speech, false advertising, first amendment
Leave a comment
“defeat devices” in trucks plausibly deceptive because they rendered vehicles unlawful to drive
Biederman v. FCA US LLC, — F.Supp.3d —-, 2025 WL 458831, No. 23-cv-06640-JSC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2025) This is a putative class action over alleged “defeat devices” in diesel engines installed in RAM 2500 and 3500 pick-up trucks. Plaintiffs … Continue reading
Washington’s anti-spam law covers any misrepresentations in subject line of commercial email
In re Brown v. Old Navy, LLC, 2025 WL 1132243, — P.3d —-, No. 102592-1 (Wash. Apr. 17, 2025) Deciding a certified question, the Washington Supreme Court held over dissent that the state’s anti-spam law covers all commercial emails with … Continue reading